Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH v5] x86: irq: Do not BUG_ON multiple unbind calls for shared pirqs

[Paul Durrant <xadimgnik@xxxxxxxxx>]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Jan Beulich <jbeulich@xxxxxxxx>
> Sent: 10 March 2020 13:57
> To: paul@xxxxxxx
> Cc: xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; Varad Gautam <vrd@xxxxxxxxx>; Julien 
> Grall <julien@xxxxxxx>; Roger
> Pau Monné <roger.pau@xxxxxxxxxx>; Andrew Cooper <andrew.cooper3@xxxxxxxxxx>
> Subject: Re: [PATCH v5] x86: irq: Do not BUG_ON multiple unbind calls for 
> shared pirqs
> 
> On 10.03.2020 13:43, paul@xxxxxxx wrote:
> > v5:
> >  - BUG_ON(!shareable) rather than ASSERT(shareable)
> >  - Drop ASSERT on nr_guests
> 
> Why drop, rather than move ...
> 
> > --- a/xen/arch/x86/irq.c
> > +++ b/xen/arch/x86/irq.c
> > @@ -1680,9 +1680,22 @@ static irq_guest_action_t *__pirq_guest_unbind(
> >
> >      BUG_ON(!(desc->status & IRQ_GUEST));
> >
> > -    for ( i = 0; (i < action->nr_guests) && (action->guest[i] != d); i++ )
> > -        continue;
> > -    BUG_ON(i == action->nr_guests);
> > +    for ( i = 0; i < action->nr_guests; i++ )
> > +        if ( action->guest[i] == d )
> > +            break;
> > +
> > +    if ( i == action->nr_guests ) /* No matching entry */
> > +    {
> 
> ... back here? (This would be easy enough to take care of while
> committing, iff we decided to go with this variant.)

Ok, let's see how your alternative goes.

  Paul

> 
> Jan


_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://lists.xenproject.org/mailman/listinfo/xen-devel