Re: [PATCH 09/14] xen: events: push setup of irq<->{evtchn,ipi,virq,pirq} maps into irq_info init functions

[Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk <konrad.wilk@oracle.com>]

On Wed, Mar 09, 2011 at 05:41:21PM +0000, Ian Campbell wrote:
> Encapsulate setup of XXX_to_irq array in the relevant
> xen_irq_info_*_init function.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Ian Campbell <ian.campbell@citrix.com>
> ---
>  drivers/xen/events.c |   42 +++++++++++++++++++++---------------------
>  1 files changed, 21 insertions(+), 21 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/drivers/xen/events.c b/drivers/xen/events.c
> index 72725fa..cf372d4 100644
> --- a/drivers/xen/events.c
> +++ b/drivers/xen/events.c
> @@ -126,6 +126,7 @@ static struct irq_info *info_for_irq(unsigned irq)
>  
>  /* Constructors for packed IRQ information. */
>  static void xen_irq_info_common_init(struct irq_info *info,
> +				     unsigned irq,
>  				     enum xen_irq_type type,
>  				     unsigned short evtchn,
>  				     unsigned short cpu)
> @@ -136,6 +137,8 @@ static void xen_irq_info_common_init(struct irq_info *info,
>  	info->type = type;
>  	info->evtchn = evtchn;
>  	info->cpu = cpu;
> +
> +	evtchn_to_irq[evtchn] = irq;

Is there any case where this would lead to an over-write? Should we
have an
  WARN_ON(evtchn_to_irq[evtchn] != -1)

just to check?
>  }
>  
>  static void xen_irq_info_evtchn_init(unsigned irq,
> @@ -143,29 +146,35 @@ static void xen_irq_info_evtchn_init(unsigned irq,
>  {
>  	struct irq_info *info = info_for_irq(irq);
>  
> -	xen_irq_info_common_init(info, IRQT_EVTCHN, evtchn, 0);
> +	xen_irq_info_common_init(info, irq, IRQT_EVTCHN, evtchn, 0);
>  }
>  
> -static void xen_irq_info_ipi_init(unsigned irq,
> +static void xen_irq_info_ipi_init(unsigned cpu,
> +				  unsigned irq,
>  				  unsigned short evtchn,
>  				  enum ipi_vector ipi)
>  {
>  	struct irq_info *info = info_for_irq(irq);
>  
> -	xen_irq_info_common_init(info, IRQT_IPI, evtchn, 0);
> +	xen_irq_info_common_init(info, irq, IRQT_IPI, evtchn, 0);
>  
>  	info->u.ipi = ipi;
> +
> +	per_cpu(ipi_to_irq, cpu)[ipi] = irq;

Ditto. Should we do a check first to see if we are overwritting anything
but the default value of -1?
>  }
>  
> -static void xen_irq_info_virq_init(unsigned irq,
> +static void xen_irq_info_virq_init(unsigned cpu,
> +				   unsigned irq,
>  				   unsigned short evtchn,
>  				   unsigned short virq)
>  {
>  	struct irq_info *info = info_for_irq(irq);
>  
> -	xen_irq_info_common_init(info, IRQT_VIRQ, evtchn, 0);
> +	xen_irq_info_common_init(info, irq, IRQT_VIRQ, evtchn, 0);
>  
>  	info->u.virq = virq;
> +
> +	per_cpu(virq_to_irq, cpu)[virq] = irq;
>  }
>  
>  static void xen_irq_info_pirq_init(unsigned irq,
> @@ -177,12 +186,14 @@ static void xen_irq_info_pirq_init(unsigned irq,
>  {
>  	struct irq_info *info = info_for_irq(irq);
>  
> -	xen_irq_info_common_init(info, IRQT_PIRQ, evtchn, 0);
> +	xen_irq_info_common_init(info, irq, IRQT_PIRQ, evtchn, 0);
>  
>  	info->u.pirq.pirq = pirq;
>  	info->u.pirq.gsi = gsi;
>  	info->u.pirq.vector = vector;
>  	info->u.pirq.flags = flags;
> +
> +	pirq_to_irq[pirq] = irq;
>  }
>  
>  /*
> @@ -644,7 +655,6 @@ int xen_bind_pirq_gsi_to_irq(unsigned gsi,
>  
>  	xen_irq_info_pirq_init(irq, 0, pirq, gsi, irq_op.vector,
>  			       shareable ? PIRQ_SHAREABLE : 0);
> -	pirq_to_irq[pirq] = irq;
>  
>  out:
>  	spin_unlock(&irq_mapping_update_lock);
> @@ -682,7 +692,6 @@ int xen_bind_pirq_msi_to_irq(struct pci_dev *dev, struct msi_desc *msidesc,
>  				      handle_level_irq, name);
>  
>  	xen_irq_info_pirq_init(irq, 0, pirq, 0, vector, 0);
> -	pirq_to_irq[pirq] = irq;
>  	ret = set_irq_msi(irq, msidesc);
>  	if (ret < 0)
>  		goto error_irq;
> @@ -746,7 +755,6 @@ int bind_evtchn_to_irq(unsigned int evtchn)
>  		set_irq_chip_and_handler_name(irq, &xen_dynamic_chip,
>  					      handle_fasteoi_irq, "event");
>  
> -		evtchn_to_irq[evtchn] = irq;
>  		xen_irq_info_evtchn_init(irq, evtchn);
>  	}
>  
> @@ -779,9 +787,7 @@ static int bind_ipi_to_irq(unsigned int ipi, unsigned int cpu)
>  			BUG();
>  		evtchn = bind_ipi.port;
>  
> -		evtchn_to_irq[evtchn] = irq;
> -		xen_irq_info_ipi_init(irq, evtchn, ipi);
> -		per_cpu(ipi_to_irq, cpu)[ipi] = irq;
> +		xen_irq_info_ipi_init(cpu, irq, evtchn, ipi);
>  
>  		bind_evtchn_to_cpu(evtchn, cpu);
>  	}
> @@ -814,10 +820,7 @@ int bind_virq_to_irq(unsigned int virq, unsigned int cpu)
>  			BUG();
>  		evtchn = bind_virq.port;
>  
> -		evtchn_to_irq[evtchn] = irq;
> -		xen_irq_info_virq_init(irq, evtchn, virq);
> -
> -		per_cpu(virq_to_irq, cpu)[virq] = irq;
> +		xen_irq_info_virq_init(cpu, irq, evtchn, virq);
>  
>  		bind_evtchn_to_cpu(evtchn, cpu);
>  	}
> @@ -1120,7 +1123,6 @@ void rebind_evtchn_irq(int evtchn, int irq)
>  	   so there should be a proper type */
>  	BUG_ON(info->type == IRQT_UNBOUND);
>  
> -	evtchn_to_irq[evtchn] = irq;
>  	xen_irq_info_evtchn_init(irq, evtchn);
>  
>  	spin_unlock(&irq_mapping_update_lock);
> @@ -1288,8 +1290,7 @@ static void restore_cpu_virqs(unsigned int cpu)
>  		evtchn = bind_virq.port;
>  
>  		/* Record the new mapping. */
> -		evtchn_to_irq[evtchn] = irq;
> -		xen_irq_info_virq_init(irq, evtchn, virq);
> +		xen_irq_info_virq_init(cpu, irq, evtchn, virq);
>  		bind_evtchn_to_cpu(evtchn, cpu);
>  	}
>  }
> @@ -1313,8 +1314,7 @@ static void restore_cpu_ipis(unsigned int cpu)
>  		evtchn = bind_ipi.port;
>  
>  		/* Record the new mapping. */
> -		evtchn_to_irq[evtchn] = irq;
> -		xen_irq_info_ipi_init(irq, evtchn, ipi);
> +		xen_irq_info_ipi_init(cpu, irq, evtchn, ipi);
>  		bind_evtchn_to_cpu(evtchn, cpu);
>  	}
>  }
> -- 
> 1.5.6.5