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 Tue, 9 Sep 2014, Ian Campbell wrote:
> On Thu, 2014-08-07 at 17:39 +0100, Stefano Stabellini wrote:
> > 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
> 
> Does that mean you are happy with the patch as is or were there other
> changes you wanted? 

The latter. I am waiting for an update on this patch with the ASSERTs.

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