WARNING - OLD ARCHIVES

This is an archived copy of the Xen.org mailing list, which we have preserved to ensure that existing links to archives are not broken. The live archive, which contains the latest emails, can be found at http://lists.xen.org/
   
 
 
Xen 
 
Home Products Support Community News
 
   
 

xen-ia64-devel

Re: [Xen-ia64-devel] [PATCH] fix oops message from timer_interrupt on VT

To: Atsushi SAKAI <sakaia@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: [Xen-ia64-devel] [PATCH] fix oops message from timer_interrupt on VTI domain
From: Alex Williamson <alex.williamson@xxxxxx>
Date: Tue, 23 Jan 2007 13:42:17 -0700
Cc: xen-ia64-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Delivery-date: Tue, 23 Jan 2007 12:41:46 -0800
Envelope-to: www-data@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
In-reply-to: <200701230038.l0N0cFhm026217@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
List-help: <mailto:xen-ia64-devel-request@lists.xensource.com?subject=help>
List-id: Discussion of the ia64 port of Xen <xen-ia64-devel.lists.xensource.com>
List-post: <mailto:xen-ia64-devel@lists.xensource.com>
List-subscribe: <http://lists.xensource.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/xen-ia64-devel>, <mailto:xen-ia64-devel-request@lists.xensource.com?subject=subscribe>
List-unsubscribe: <http://lists.xensource.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/xen-ia64-devel>, <mailto:xen-ia64-devel-request@lists.xensource.com?subject=unsubscribe>
Organization: HP OSLO R&D
References: <200701230038.l0N0cFhm026217@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sender: xen-ia64-devel-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
On Tue, 2007-01-23 at 09:36 +0900, Atsushi SAKAI wrote:
> diff -r 91be8436952d xen/arch/ia64/vmx/vlsapic.c
> --- a/xen/arch/ia64/vmx/vlsapic.c       Wed Jan 10 10:37:41 2007 -0700
> +++ b/xen/arch/ia64/vmx/vlsapic.c       Tue Jan 23 09:21:13 2007 +0900
> @@ -59,7 +59,7 @@ extern void vmx_reflect_interruption(u64
>                                       u64 vector, REGS *regs);
>  static void update_last_itc(vtime_t *vtm, uint64_t cur_itc)
>  {
> -    vtm->last_itc = cur_itc;
> +    vtm->last_itc = cur_itc + 1;
>  }
>  
>  /* 

   In theory, I think this is probably fine.  But wouldn't it make more
sense to have the caller do the increment?  Something like:

        update_last_itc(vtm, VCPU(vcpu, itm) + 1);

Preferably with a nice comment describing the condition that + 1 is
trying to avoid.  Thanks,

        Alex

-- 
Alex Williamson                             HP Open Source & Linux Org.


_______________________________________________
Xen-ia64-devel mailing list
Xen-ia64-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.xensource.com/xen-ia64-devel