From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: David Vrabel <david.vrabel@citrix.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 10/13] xen/events: Refactor evtchn_to_irq
 array to be dynamically allocated
Date: Thu, 26 Sep 2013 11:53:07 +0100
Message-ID: <52441213.5050808@citrix.com>
References: <1379091601-30358-1-git-send-email-david.vrabel@citrix.com>
	<1379091601-30358-11-git-send-email-david.vrabel@citrix.com>
	<20130924145819.GI4712@phenom.dumpdata.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Return-path: <xen-devel-bounces@lists.xen.org>
In-Reply-To: <20130924145819.GI4712@phenom.dumpdata.com>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.xen.org/cgi-bin/mailman/options/xen-devel>,
	<mailto:xen-devel-request@lists.xen.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Post: <mailto:xen-devel@lists.xen.org>
List-Help: <mailto:xen-devel-request@lists.xen.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.xen.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/xen-devel>,
	<mailto:xen-devel-request@lists.xen.org?subject=subscribe>
Sender: xen-devel-bounces@lists.xen.org
Errors-To: xen-devel-bounces@lists.xen.org
To: Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk <konrad.wilk@oracle.com>
Cc: Boris Ostrovsky <boris.ostrovsky@oracle.com>, Malcolm Crossley <malcolm.crossley@citrix.com>, Jan Beulich <jbeulich@suse.com>, xen-devel@lists.xen.org
List-Id: xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org

On 24/09/13 15:58, Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk wrote:
> On Fri, Sep 13, 2013 at 05:59:58PM +0100, David Vrabel wrote:
>> From: Malcolm Crossley <malcolm.crossley@citrix.com>
>>
>> Refactor static array evtchn_to_irq array to be dynamically allocated by
>> implementing get and set functions for accesses to the array.
>>
>> Two new port ops are added: max_channels (maximum supported number of
>> event channels) and nr_channels (number of currently usable event
>> channels).  For the N-level ABI, these numbers are both the same as
>> the shared data structure is a fixed size. For the FIFO ABI, these
>                             ^^ has

I think either usage is fine.

>> +	if (evtchn_to_irq[row] == NULL) {
>> +		/* Unallocated irq entries return -1 anyway */
>                                            ^^^^^ - are

Unallocated entries can't have a value because they're, well,
unallocated. So I think the original phrasing is more correct.

"get_evtchn_to_irq() returns -1 for unallocated entries anyway" would be
slighter better though.

David

ps. Can you also trim your replies in future?  As in between the grammar
nit-picking there was an actual bug that needed fixing and this is hard
to find with the untrimmed quoting.