From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Tim Deegan <tim@xen.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/7] xen/arm: fix rank calculation in
	vgic_vcpu_inject_irq
Date: Sat, 27 Oct 2012 11:09:29 +0100
Message-ID: <20121027100929.GA89901@ocelot.phlegethon.org>
References: <alpine.DEB.2.02.1210241455080.2689@kaball.uk.xensource.com>
	<1351091027-20740-1-git-send-email-stefano.stabellini@eu.citrix.com>
	<1351157246.18035.129.camel@zakaz.uk.xensource.com>
	<alpine.DEB.2.02.1210261732000.2689@kaball.uk.xensource.com>
	<1351269622.15162.105.camel@zakaz.uk.xensource.com>
	<alpine.DEB.2.02.1210261940300.2689@kaball.uk.xensource.com>
	<1351284440.12176.9.camel@dagon.hellion.org.uk>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Return-path: <xen-devel-bounces@lists.xen.org>
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <1351284440.12176.9.camel@dagon.hellion.org.uk>
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: Ian Campbell <Ian.Campbell@citrix.com>
Cc: "xen-devel@lists.xensource.com" <xen-devel@lists.xensource.com>, Stefano Stabellini <stefano.stabellini@eu.citrix.com>
List-Id: xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org

At 21:47 +0100 on 26 Oct (1351288040), Ian Campbell wrote:
> On Fri, 2012-10-26 at 19:42 +0100, Stefano Stabellini wrote:
> > I think that the problem is the usage of vgic_irq_rank with registers
> > that have 1 bit per interrupt.
> 
> That's very plausible indeed.
> 
> > diff --git a/xen/arch/arm/vgic.c b/xen/arch/arm/vgic.c
> > index 3c3983f..92731b6 100644
> > --- a/xen/arch/arm/vgic.c
> > +++ b/xen/arch/arm/vgic.c
> > @@ -42,13 +42,7 @@
> >   */
> >  static inline int REG_RANK_NR(int b, uint32_t n)
> >  {
> > -    switch ( b )
> > -    {
> > -    case 8: return n >> 3;
> > -    case 4: return n >> 2;
> > -    case 2: return n >> 1;
> > -    default: BUG();
> > -    }
> > +    return n / b;
> 
> All the infrastructure will fall apart if b isn't a power of two, that's
> why I used the switch. Can you just add the appropriate case 1 instead?
> Probably the bug should be a call to an undefined function to make this
> a compile time rather than runtime failure too.

BUILD_BUG_ON((b & -b) != b); ?

Tim.