Re: [RFC] Spurious PIC interrupts

[Andrew Cooper <andrew.cooper3@citrix.com>]

On 28/08/12 22:32, Keir Fraser wrote:
> On 28/08/2012 20:59, "Andrew Cooper" <andrew.cooper3@citrix.com> wrote:
>
>> Since Jan's patch to print and mask bogus PIC vectors, we have found
>> some issues on older hardware were supurious PIC vectors are being
>> repeatedly logged, as spurious vectors will ignore the relevant mask bit.
>>
>> The log message is deceptive in the case of a spurious vector.  I have
>> attached an RFC patch which changes the bogus_8259A_irq logic to be able
>> to detect spurious vectors and be rather less verbose about them.
>>
>> The new bogus_8259A_irq() function is basically a copy of
>> _mask_and_ack_8259A_irq(), but returning a boolean indicating whether it
>> was a genuine interrupt or not, which controls whether the "No irq
>> handler" message in do_IRQ gets printed or not.
>>
>> Jan: are you happy with the style of the adjustment, or could you
>> suggest a better way of doing it?
> No, you should make the change to _mask_and_ack_8259A_irq() itself, and
> callers which do not care about the return code can simply discard it.

Ok - I initially avoided that because _mask_and_ack_8259A_irq() is used
to fill a function pointer structure, and preferred less change to the core.

I will re-design somewhat with these points in mind.

~Andrew

>
> I hardly even want one instance of that appalling function in the tree, let
> alone two! Terrible abuse of goto, and I'm pretty laid back about goto use.
>
> And we don't use True/False anywhere else in Xen. We don't even have any
> centralised definition of true/false of any kind, so you should really just
> use 1/0 directly. Alternatively you could propose a patch to define
> true/false in our types.h, and use those. I don't know where the capitalised
> True/False came from!
>
>  -- Keir
>
>

-- 
Andrew Cooper - Dom0 Kernel Engineer, Citrix XenServer
T: +44 (0)1223 225 900, http://www.citrix.com