>>> On 07.09.15 at 15:00, <yang.z.zh...@intel.com> wrote:
> Jan Beulich wrote on 2015-09-07:
>> Yang, in this context: Why does __vmx_deliver_posted_interrupt()
>> not use cpu_raise_softirq(), instead kind of open coding it (see your
>> d7dafa375b ["VMX: Add posted interrupt supporting"])?
>
> Sorry, I am not in the context. What do you mean of using
> cpu_raise_softirq() in __vmx_deliver_posted_interrupt()?
Why is the function not using that ready to use helper? Looking at
it ...
>static void __vmx_deliver_posted_interrupt(struct vcpu *v)
>{
> bool_t running = v->is_running;
>
> vcpu_unblock(v);
> if ( running && (in_irq() || (v != current)) )
> {
> unsigned int cpu = v->processor;
>
> if ( !test_and_set_bit(VCPU_KICK_SOFTIRQ, &softirq_pending(cpu))
... this line as well as ...
> && (cpu != smp_processor_id()) )
> send_IPI_mask(cpumask_of(cpu), posted_intr_vector);
... this one ...
> }
>}
... pretty certainly don't belong into vmx.c, or the apparent open
coding of cpu_raise_softirq() would require a justifying comment.
Jan
_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@lists.xen.org
http://lists.xen.org/xen-devel
