From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Keir Fraser <keir.xen@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC] Spurious PIC interrupts
Date: Wed, 29 Aug 2012 10:50:00 +0100
Message-ID: <CC63A458.3D30F%keir.xen@gmail.com>
References: <503DDC13.30206@citrix.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: <503DDC13.30206@citrix.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: Andrew Cooper <andrew.cooper3@citrix.com>
Cc: Jan Beulich <jbeulich@suse.com>, "xen-devel@lists.xen.org" <xen-devel@lists.xen.org>
List-Id: xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org

On 29/08/2012 10:08, "Andrew Cooper" <andrew.cooper3@citrix.com> wrote:

>> No, you should make the change to _mask_and_ack_8259A_irq() itself, and
>> callers which do not care about the return code can simply discard it.
> 
> Ok - I initially avoided that because _mask_and_ack_8259A_irq() is used
> to fill a function pointer structure, and preferred less change to the core.
> 
> I will re-design somewhat with these points in mind.

Worst case rename to __mask_and_ack_8259A_irq() and implement new
_mask_and_ack_8259A_irq() which simply calls it and discards the return
code. Still much better than duplicating the function.

 -- Keir