On December 22, 2016 4:12 PM, Jan Beulich wrote: >>>> On 21.12.16 at 06:44, <xuqu...@huawei.com> wrote: >> --- a/xen/arch/x86/hvm/vmx/intr.c >> +++ b/xen/arch/x86/hvm/vmx/intr.c >> @@ -315,9 +315,13 @@ void vmx_intr_assist(void) >> * Set eoi_exit_bitmap for periodic timer interrup to cause >EOI-induced VM >> * exit, then pending periodic time interrups have the chance >to be injected >> * for compensation >> + * Set eoi_exit_bitmap for intack.vector when it's higher than >pending >> + * periodic time interrupts. This way we can guarantee there's >always a chance >> + * to post periodic time interrupts when periodic time >interrupts becomes the >> + * highest one >> */ >> if (pt_vector != -1) >> - vmx_set_eoi_exit_bitmap(v, pt_vector); >> + vmx_set_eoi_exit_bitmap(v, intack.vector); > >The comment does not clarify why max(pt_vector, intack.vector) is not >needed. And I'd expect you to add ASSERT(intack.vector >= pt_vector) then, >to prove this (and one might argue that this addition could be sufficient >documentation, albeit perhaps a brief comment next to the assertion >would help readers of this non-trivial piece of code). > Kevin or Jan.. ASSERT(...) is ok to me.. Could you help me give a brief comment?
Quan _______________________________________________ Xen-devel mailing list Xen-devel@lists.xen.org https://lists.xen.org/xen-devel
