WARNING - OLD ARCHIVES

This is an archived copy of the Xen.org mailing list, which we have preserved to ensure that existing links to archives are not broken. The live archive, which contains the latest emails, can be found at http://lists.xen.org/
   
 
 
Xen 
 
Home Products Support Community News
 
   
 

xen-ia64-devel

Re: [Xen-ia64-devel] [Patch][RFC] remove panic_domain in guest_write_eoi

To: Akio Takebe <takebe_akio@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: [Xen-ia64-devel] [Patch][RFC] remove panic_domain in guest_write_eoi() for kexec on HVM
From: Alex Williamson <alex.williamson@xxxxxx>
Date: Tue, 09 Oct 2007 08:57:36 -0600
Cc: xen-ia64-devel <xen-ia64-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Delivery-date: Tue, 09 Oct 2007 07:58:11 -0700
Envelope-to: www-data@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
In-reply-to: <21C80A7DB7AE3Etakebe_akio@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
List-help: <mailto:xen-ia64-devel-request@lists.xensource.com?subject=help>
List-id: Discussion of the ia64 port of Xen <xen-ia64-devel.lists.xensource.com>
List-post: <mailto:xen-ia64-devel@lists.xensource.com>
List-subscribe: <http://lists.xensource.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/xen-ia64-devel>, <mailto:xen-ia64-devel-request@lists.xensource.com?subject=subscribe>
List-unsubscribe: <http://lists.xensource.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/xen-ia64-devel>, <mailto:xen-ia64-devel-request@lists.xensource.com?subject=unsubscribe>
Organization: HP OSLO R&D
References: <21C80A7DB7AE3Etakebe_akio@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sender: xen-ia64-devel-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
On Tue, 2007-10-09 at 23:07 +0900, Akio Takebe wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> I thik the following panic_domain in guest_write_eoi() is not necessary,
> because ia64_eoi() in linux is called without checikng in-service.
> 
>  515 void guest_write_eoi(VCPU *vcpu)
>  516 {
>  517     int vec;
>  518 
>  519     vec = highest_inservice_irq(vcpu);
>  520     if ( vec == NULL_VECTOR ) 
>  521         panic_domain(vcpu_regs(vcpu), "Wrong vector to EOI\n");
>  522     VLSAPIC_INSVC(vcpu,vec>>6) &= ~(1UL <<(vec&63));
>  523     VCPU(vcpu, eoi)=0;    // overwrite the data
>  524     vcpu->arch.irq_new_pending=1;
>  525     wmb();
>  526 }
> 
> What do you think about it?

   The panic does seem a bit much, but shouldn't we return rather than
continue on with a NULL_VECTOR?  Thanks,

        Alex

-- 
Alex Williamson                             HP Open Source & Linux Org.


_______________________________________________
Xen-ia64-devel mailing list
Xen-ia64-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.xensource.com/xen-ia64-devel