> From: Wu, Feng
> Sent: Tuesday, November 03, 2015 4:43 PM
N' is set
>
> Currently, we don't support urgent interrupt, all interrupts
> are recognized as non-urgent interrupt, so we cannot send
> posted-interrupt when 'SN' is set.
>
> CC: Kevin Tian <kevin.t...@intel.com>
> CC: Keir Fraser <k...@xen.org>
> CC: Jan Beulich <jbeul...@suse.com>
> CC: Andrew Cooper <andrew.coop...@citrix.com>
> Signed-off-by: Feng Wu <feng...@intel.com>
> Reviewed-by: Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk <konrad.w...@oracle.com>
> Reviewed-by: Jan Beulich <jbeul...@suse.com>
Acked-by: Kevin Tian <kevin.t...@intel.com>, with one small comment:
> + do {
> + /*
> + * Currently, we don't support urgent interrupt, all
> + * interrupts are recognized as non-urgent interrupt,
> + * so we cannot send posted-interrupt when 'SN' is set.
> + * Besides that, if 'ON' is already set, we cannot set
> + * posted-interrupts as well.
> + */
Is above comment accurate. "cannot set" is too strong for 'ON'
already set, right? Ideally there's no correctness issue if you
still deliver another posted-interrupt even when ON is already set.
To me it's more like an optimization then it's cleaner to say
"we can avoid"...
Thanks
Kevin
_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@lists.xen.org
http://lists.xen.org/xen-devel
