>>> On 18.01.17 at 05:57, <[email protected]> wrote:
> Attached was my earlier comment:
>
> --
>> >>> On 20.12.16 at 06:37, <[email protected]> wrote:
>> >> From: Xuquan (Quan Xu) [mailto:[email protected]]
>> >> Sent: Friday, December 16, 2016 5:40 PM
>> >> - if (pt_vector != -1)
>> >> - vmx_set_eoi_exit_bitmap(v, pt_vector);
>> >> + if ( pt_vector != -1 ) {
>> >> + if ( intack.vector > pt_vector )
>> >> + vmx_set_eoi_exit_bitmap(v, intack.vector);
>> >> + else
>> >> + vmx_set_eoi_exit_bitmap(v, pt_vector);
>> >> + }
>> >
>> > Above can be simplified as one line change:
>> > if ( pt_vector != -1 )
>> > vmx_set_eoi_exit_bitmap(v, intack.vector);
>>
>> Hmm, I don't understand. Did you mean to use max() here? Or
>> else how is this an equivalent of the originally proposed code?
>>
>
> Original code is not 100% correct. The purpose is to set EOI exit
> bitmap for any vector which may block injection of pt_vector -
> give chance to recognize pt_vector in future intack and then do pt
> intr post. The simplified code achieves this effect same as original
> code if intack.vector >= vector. I cannot come up a case why
> intack.vector might be smaller than vector. If this case happens,
> we still need enable exit bitmap for intack.vector instead of
> pt_vector for said purpose while original code did it wrong.
>
> Thanks
> Kevin
> --
>
> Using intack.vector is always expected here regardless of the
> comparison result between intack.vector and pt_vector. The
> reason why I was OK adding an ASSERT was simply to test
> whether intack.vecor<pt_vector does happen which is
> orthogonal to the fix itself.
Well, a vector lower than pt_vector can't block delivery. Or wait:
Don't we need to consider vector classes here, i.e.
ASSERT((intack.vector >> 4) >= (pt_vector >> 4));
?
Jan
_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.xen.org/xen-devel
