From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Andrew Cooper Subject: Re: [PATCH] x86/IO-APIC: refine EOI-ing of migrating level interrupts Date: Tue, 15 Nov 2011 13:35:27 +0000 Message-ID: <4EC26A9F.8050501@citrix.com> References: <4EC273B40200007800061145@nat28.tlf.novell.com> <4EC266E3.50706@citrix.com> <4EC276E90200007800061160@nat28.tlf.novell.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: <4EC276E90200007800061160@nat28.tlf.novell.com> List-Unsubscribe: , List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: xen-devel-bounces@lists.xensource.com Errors-To: xen-devel-bounces@lists.xensource.com To: Jan Beulich Cc: "xen-devel@lists.xensource.com" List-Id: xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org On 15/11/11 13:27, Jan Beulich wrote: >>>> On 15.11.11 at 14:19, Andrew Cooper wrote: >> On 15/11/11 13:14, Jan Beulich wrote: >>> if ( ioapic_has_eoi_reg(apic) ) >>> { >>> /* If vector is unknown, read it from the IO-APIC */ >>> - if ( vector == -1 ) >>> + if ( vector == IRQ_VECTOR_UNASSIGNED ) >> Quick style query: I consider IRQ_VECTOR_UNASSIGNED logically different >> from passing -1 in as a value for vector, even though they are the are >> the same value. Is it sensible to mix them? > I view it quite the other way around: One should explicitly pass > IRQ_VECTOR_UNASSIGNED when passing a literal value (which > currently doesn't happen anyway. Primarily because passing > desc->arch.vector or desc->arch.old_vector could happen to also > hold this very value. > > Jan Ok. Do you want any other patches to be tested on the problem server? -- Andrew Cooper - Dom0 Kernel Engineer, Citrix XenServer T: +44 (0)1223 225 900, http://www.citrix.com