Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH v1] arm/irq: Reorder check when the IRQ is already used by someone

[Julien Grall <julien.grall@xxxxxxx>]

Hi Oleksandr,

On 02/12/16 16:38, Oleksandr Tyshchenko wrote:
> Call irq_get_domain for the IRQ we are interested in
> only after making sure that it is the guest IRQ to avoid
> ASSERT(test_bit(_IRQ_GUEST, &desc->status)) triggering.
>
> Signed-off-by: Oleksandr Tyshchenko <oleksandr_tyshchenko@xxxxxxxx>
> Signed-off-by: Andrii Anisov <andrii_anisov@xxxxxxxx>
> ---
>  xen/arch/arm/irq.c | 32 +++++++++++++++++++-------------
>  1 file changed, 19 insertions(+), 13 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/xen/arch/arm/irq.c b/xen/arch/arm/irq.c
> index 06d4843..508028b 100644
> --- a/xen/arch/arm/irq.c
> +++ b/xen/arch/arm/irq.c
> @@ -477,26 +477,32 @@ int route_irq_to_guest(struct domain *d, unsigned int 
> virq,
>       */
>      if ( desc->action != NULL )
>      {
> -        struct domain *ad = irq_get_domain(desc);
> -
> -        if ( test_bit(_IRQ_GUEST, &desc->status) && d == ad )
> +        if ( test_bit(_IRQ_GUEST, &desc->status) )
>          {
> -            if ( irq_get_guest_info(desc)->virq != virq )
> +            struct domain *ad = irq_get_domain(desc);
> +
> +            if ( d == ad )
> +            {
> +                if ( irq_get_guest_info(desc)->virq != virq )
I know that Stefano already reviewed and queued this patch. But 4 layer 
of if seems a bit too much and could have been avoided by re-ordering 
the check.
if ( d != ad )
  ....
else if ( irq_get_guest_info(desc->virq != virq) )
  ....

Can you please send a follow-up to remove one layer of 1?

Regards,

--
Julien Grall

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