Re: [PATCH] x86/MSI: fix guest unmasking when handling IRQ via event channel

[Julien Grall <julien.grall@citrix.com>]

On 08/07/2015 11:55, Jan Beulich wrote:
>>>> On 08.07.15 at 11:07, <julien.grall@citrix.com> wrote:
>> On 08/07/2015 09:56, Jan Beulich wrote:
>>> --- a/xen/include/asm-arm/irq.h
>>> +++ b/xen/include/asm-arm/irq.h
>>> @@ -47,6 +47,8 @@ int release_guest_irq(struct domain *d,
>>>
>>>    void arch_move_irqs(struct vcpu *v);
>>>
>>> +#define arch_evtchn_bind_pirq(d, pirq) ((void)((d) + (pirq)))
>>> +
>>
>> This addition is here in order to ensure that d and pirq are evaluated,
>> right?
>
> Sure.
>
>> If so, I didn't find it obvious to understand. Why didn't you use a
>> static inline? Or maybe add a comment explicitly say this is not
>> implemented.
>
> A static inline could be used in this case, yes. But I see no
> significant advantages. As to the comment - it is implemented,
> it's just a no-op. And stating that it is a no-op would be
> redundant with it obviously being so by looking at it.

It's not so obvious as I asked about it.

The first thing I saw was (d) + (pirq) and I though : "Why do we want to 
add a domain with a pirq?". I only see after the (void) and it just 
because I remembered we talked about similar case a year ago.

Having a comment doesn't hurt and help the comprehension.

-- 
Julien Grall