Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH] x86/IO-APIC: refine EOI-ing of migrating level interrupts

["Jan Beulich" <JBeulich@xxxxxxxx>]

>>> On 15.11.11 at 14:19, Andrew Cooper <andrew.cooper3@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On 15/11/11 13:14, Jan Beulich wrote:
>>      if ( ioapic_has_eoi_reg(apic) )
>>      {
>>          /* If vector is unknown, read it from the IO-APIC */
>> -        if ( vector == -1 )
>> +        if ( vector == IRQ_VECTOR_UNASSIGNED )
> 
> Quick style query:  I consider IRQ_VECTOR_UNASSIGNED logically different
> from passing -1 in as a value for vector, even though they are the are
> the same value.  Is it sensible to mix them?

I view it quite the other way around: One should explicitly pass
IRQ_VECTOR_UNASSIGNED when passing a literal value (which
currently doesn't happen anyway. Primarily because passing
desc->arch.vector or desc->arch.old_vector could happen to also
hold this very value.

Jan


_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.xensource.com/xen-devel