On Mon, Dec 5, 2016 at 3:50 PM, Julien Grall <julien.gr...@arm.com> wrote:
> Hi Oleksandr,
Hi Julien
>
>
> On 02/12/16 16:38, Oleksandr Tyshchenko wrote:
>
>> Call irq_get_domain for the IRQ we are interested in
>> only after making sure that it is the guest IRQ to avoid
>> ASSERT(test_bit(_IRQ_GUEST, &desc->status)) triggering.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Oleksandr Tyshchenko <oleksandr_tyshche...@epam.com>
>> Signed-off-by: Andrii Anisov <andrii_ani...@epam.com>
>> ---
>> xen/arch/arm/irq.c | 32 +++++++++++++++++++-------------
>> 1 file changed, 19 insertions(+), 13 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/xen/arch/arm/irq.c b/xen/arch/arm/irq.c
>> index 06d4843..508028b 100644
>> --- a/xen/arch/arm/irq.c
>> +++ b/xen/arch/arm/irq.c
>> @@ -477,26 +477,32 @@ int route_irq_to_guest(struct domain *d, unsigned
>> int virq,
>> */
>> if ( desc->action != NULL )
>> {
>> - struct domain *ad = irq_get_domain(desc);
>> -
>> - if ( test_bit(_IRQ_GUEST, &desc->status) && d == ad )
>> + if ( test_bit(_IRQ_GUEST, &desc->status) )
>> {
>> - if ( irq_get_guest_info(desc)->virq != virq )
>> + struct domain *ad = irq_get_domain(desc);
>> +
>> + if ( d == ad )
>> + {
>> + if ( irq_get_guest_info(desc)->virq != virq )
>>
>
> I know that Stefano already reviewed and queued this patch. But 4 layer of
> if seems a bit too much and could have been avoided by re-ordering the
> check.
>
> if ( d != ad )
> ....
> else if ( irq_get_guest_info(desc->virq != virq) )
> ....
>
> Can you please send a follow-up to remove one layer of 1?
>
Sure
>
> Regards,
>
> --
> Julien Grall
>
_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@lists.xen.org
https://lists.xen.org/xen-devel
