Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH v2 09/21] xen/arm: Release IRQ routed to a domain when it's destroying

[Stefano Stabellini <stefano.stabellini@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

On Thu, 7 Aug 2014, Julien Grall wrote:
> On 08/07/2014 05:31 PM, Stefano Stabellini wrote:
> > On Thu, 7 Aug 2014, Julien Grall wrote:
> >> On 08/07/2014 04:36 PM, Stefano Stabellini wrote:
> >>>> But I doubt we will have PPIs in future, there is more issues to handle
> >>>> (such as the number of VCPUs doesn't match the number of physical CPUs).
> >>>
> >>> In that case, why not call the two functions release_guest_spi and
> >>> gic_remove_spi_from_guest?
> >>
> >> Because the 2 functions to route the irq are called route_irq_to_guest
> >> and gic_route_irq_to_guest.
> > 
> > I would prefer to avoid introducing more functions that look like they
> > can handle any irqs but actually they cannot by design.
> 
> That why Xen checks the IRQ number at the beginning of route_irq_to_guest.
> 
> > I would be OK with the asymmetry in function names. We could also turn
> > route_irq_to_guest into route_spi_to_guest and gic_route_irq_to_guest
> > into gic_route_spi_to_guest.
> 
> Those functions will be used for MSI sooner or later. I would prefer to
> keep the current name and add an ASSERT.

OK then, I can settle for that

_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.xen.org/xen-devel