Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH v3 09/24] xen/arm: route_irq_to_guest: Check validity of the IRQ

[Stefano Stabellini <stefano.stabellini@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

On Wed, 28 Jan 2015, Julien Grall wrote:
> On 28/01/15 17:55, Stefano Stabellini wrote:
> >> ---
> >>  xen/arch/arm/irq.c        | 58 
> >> +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++----
> >>  xen/include/asm-arm/irq.h |  2 ++
> >>  2 files changed, 56 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
> >>
> >> diff --git a/xen/arch/arm/irq.c b/xen/arch/arm/irq.c
> >> index 830832c..af408ac 100644
> >> --- a/xen/arch/arm/irq.c
> >> +++ b/xen/arch/arm/irq.c
> >> @@ -379,6 +379,15 @@ err:
> >>      return rc;
> >>  }
> >>  
> >> +bool_t is_assignable_irq(unsigned int irq)
> > 
> > static inline?
> 
> It's exported (will be used later) and not possible to inline in irq.h
> because of interdependency between irq.h and gic.h
> 
> [..]
> 
> >> @@ -418,13 +460,21 @@ int route_irq_to_guest(struct domain *d, unsigned 
> >> int virq,
> >>          struct domain *ad = irq_get_domain(desc);
> >>  
> >>          if ( test_bit(_IRQ_GUEST, &desc->status) && d == ad )
> >> +        {
> >> +            if ( irq_get_guest_info(desc)->virq != virq )
> >> +            {
> >> +                dprintk(XENLOG_G_ERR, "d%u: IRQ %u is already assigned to 
> >> vIRQ %u\n",
> >> +                        d->domain_id, irq, 
> >> irq_get_guest_info(desc)->virq);
> >> +                retval = -EPERM;
> > 
> > I don't think that EPERM is the right error for this. Maybe EBUSY?
> 
> Right.
> 
> > 
> >> +            }
> > 
> > Should we return error for this too? Maybe EEXIST?
> 
> No, this is a valid use case especially for DOM0.  The device tree may
> expose twice the same IRQ.

OK

_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.xen.org/xen-devel