On Thursday 26 August 2010 17:22:29 Keir Fraser wrote:
> By the way, could an IRQ's 'domain' be given a better name in Xen? We
> already have a meaning for domain, and it makes the code very confusing!
> Can we call it cpu_affinity or cpu_binding, or something a bit more
> meaningful and distinguishable?
Or use cpu_mask directly? Would send an separate patch if you like, for
whatever
name. :)
--
regards
Yang, Sheng
>
> -- Keir
>
> On 26/08/2010 10:14, "Sheng Yang" <sheng@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > The "mask" covered all online cpus in the "domain". It should be used as
> > destination later, instead of using "domain" directly.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Sheng Yang <sheng@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> >
> > --
> > diff --git a/xen/arch/x86/irq.c b/xen/arch/x86/irq.c
> > --- a/xen/arch/x86/irq.c
> > +++ b/xen/arch/x86/irq.c
> > @@ -86,14 +86,14 @@
> >
> > cpus_and(mask, domain, cpu_online_map);
> > if (cpus_empty(mask))
> >
> > return -EINVAL;
> >
> > - if ((cfg->vector == vector) && cpus_equal(cfg->domain, domain))
> > + if ((cfg->vector == vector) && cpus_equal(cfg->domain, mask))
> >
> > return 0;
> >
> > if (cfg->vector != IRQ_VECTOR_UNASSIGNED)
> >
> > return -EBUSY;
> >
> > for_each_cpu_mask(cpu, mask)
> >
> > per_cpu(vector_irq, cpu)[vector] = irq;
> >
> > cfg->vector = vector;
> >
> > - cfg->domain = domain;
> > + cfg->domain = mask;
> >
> > irq_status[irq] = IRQ_USED;
> > if (IO_APIC_IRQ(irq))
> >
> > irq_vector[irq] = vector;
_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.xensource.com/xen-devel
|
Home