[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [PATCH] xen/smp: Support NULL IPI function pointers
- To: Andrew Cooper <andrew.cooper3@xxxxxxxxxx>
- From: Jan Beulich <jbeulich@xxxxxxxx>
- Date: Thu, 18 Nov 2021 10:58:51 +0100
- Arc-authentication-results: i=1; mx.microsoft.com 1; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=suse.com; dmarc=pass action=none header.from=suse.com; dkim=pass header.d=suse.com; arc=none
- Arc-message-signature: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=microsoft.com; s=arcselector9901; h=From:Date:Subject:Message-ID:Content-Type:MIME-Version:X-MS-Exchange-AntiSpam-MessageData-ChunkCount:X-MS-Exchange-AntiSpam-MessageData-0:X-MS-Exchange-AntiSpam-MessageData-1; bh=MuHa7okESgt9qRNIJdeUHhwtPOGDq/Y+/WpjZzyGnnI=; b=iCLzc/CUwpPgFydcVn8ewaSEy4FzTLN74q2SfQYrx/8qIqmJSY3hOzUPzDefEMkKHYaj3K2+LnFStkyuHh/UWCkcIuijBZIPXJPEKa5FNGerc5Xo7cPbEbIXl4Fy7lVKx3TYjWOhmIFmZIXbEgEzrvQW4as1zZkOhLLXrDrK3o8OhY7FOJ+kaqB3ZrpJLEBn4QT3rfd1mxRd7hxfwBYRaIGeNDyzkDRhTtsligIrgtDWfr1NHE3q0DzA2ciygmTH9767KkBet7TXeg9IckDaARo4ZlL9uK8mS4Vo9nyy8zKbvuo8b2X4JJDfsvFjyfuT8KlBbK+yGlNpM/3mbmDygg==
- Arc-seal: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; s=arcselector9901; d=microsoft.com; cv=none; b=czUFdtuzmc+xbfT05e122OWL+YoHNYlEY0qZWNJbubVzV2vF3A4HCu0dwTPhoo6dfDL9tl/zZP2DbmZuAoXqxrf/lFdpeRUz7//khCeB0VrvDhs5u3KJYwGSYk481dP0OhcyKQJsbu7N9jFheOybX1QS6lyKsGKq0VS3bjrzY7QbCKonuWgHUk4m+0pizWuv3nbCrvSYGYZBs/J8SBFS9/YJe4q5339KejiiiJ0RYQqNAXLRpwzNtq53ME8r+0fcdgG0184GL0aDjJaQXdXFbXJo06AHJRuOg7MPlxtv9Aw67VBkfFQJ7j4lYnX1UURRlHoTi0vH7iz56VjJuZ28Rg==
- Authentication-results: dkim=none (message not signed) header.d=none;dmarc=none action=none header.from=suse.com;
- Cc: Roger Pau Monné <roger.pau@xxxxxxxxxx>, Wei Liu <wl@xxxxxxx>, Xen-devel <xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Delivery-date: Thu, 18 Nov 2021 09:59:04 +0000
- List-id: Xen developer discussion <xen-devel.lists.xenproject.org>
On 17.11.2021 17:48, Andrew Cooper wrote:
> There are several cases where the act of interrupting a remote processor has
> the required side effect. Explicitly allow NULL function pointers so the
> calling code doesn't have to provide a stub implementation.
>
> Signed-off-by: Andrew Cooper <andrew.cooper3@xxxxxxxxxx>
> ---
> CC: Jan Beulich <JBeulich@xxxxxxxx>
> CC: Roger Pau Monné <roger.pau@xxxxxxxxxx>
> CC: Wei Liu <wl@xxxxxxx>
>
> The wait parameter is a little weird. It serves double duty and will confirm
> that the IPI has been taken. All it does is let you control whether you also
> wait for the handler to complete first. As such, it is effectively useless
> with a stub function.
>
> I don't particularly like folding into the .wait() path like that, but I
> dislike it less than an if()/else if() and adding a 3rd cpumask_clear_cpu()
> into the confusion which is this logic.
I can accept this, albeit personally I would have preferred the extra if()
over the goto.
Reviewed-by: Jan Beulich <jbeulich@xxxxxxxx>
Jan
|
