>>> On 30.08.10 at 18:36, Jeremy Fitzhardinge <jeremy@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On 08/30/2010 01:03 AM, Jan Beulich wrote:
>> For us, using fasteoi, move_native_irq() sits in ->eoi(), before
>> un-masking. One could, as Jeremy suggests, call move_masked_irq()
>> here, but I didn't want to duplicate the IRQ_DISABLED check done
>> in move_native_irq(), mainly to not depend on following potential
>> future changes (additions) to the set of conditions checked there.
> Is there actually a problem with moving a IRQ_DISABLED interrupt? If
> so, shouldn't that IRQ_DISABLED check also be in move_masked_irq()?
I don't know, all I do know is that it initially wasn't that way, but got
changed to this at some point. Maybe it's more like being pointless
to move a disabled interrupt?
Xen-devel mailing list