Re: [Xen-devel] Fix bind_irq_vector() destination

[Keir Fraser <keir.fraser@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

By the way, could an IRQ's 'domain' be given a better name in Xen? We
already have a meaning for domain, and it makes the code very confusing! Can
we call it cpu_affinity or cpu_binding, or something a bit more meaningful
and distinguishable?

 -- Keir

On 26/08/2010 10:14, "Sheng Yang" <sheng@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> The "mask" covered all online cpus in the "domain". It should be used as
> destination later, instead of using "domain" directly.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Sheng Yang <sheng@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> 
> --
> diff --git a/xen/arch/x86/irq.c b/xen/arch/x86/irq.c
> --- a/xen/arch/x86/irq.c
> +++ b/xen/arch/x86/irq.c
> @@ -86,14 +86,14 @@
>      cpus_and(mask, domain, cpu_online_map);
>      if (cpus_empty(mask))
>          return -EINVAL;
> -    if ((cfg->vector == vector) && cpus_equal(cfg->domain, domain))
> +    if ((cfg->vector == vector) && cpus_equal(cfg->domain, mask))
>          return 0;
>      if (cfg->vector != IRQ_VECTOR_UNASSIGNED)
>          return -EBUSY;
>      for_each_cpu_mask(cpu, mask)
>          per_cpu(vector_irq, cpu)[vector] = irq;
>      cfg->vector = vector;
> -    cfg->domain = domain;
> +    cfg->domain = mask;
>      irq_status[irq] = IRQ_USED;
>      if (IO_APIC_IRQ(irq))
>          irq_vector[irq] = vector;



_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.xensource.com/xen-devel