Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH v1] arm/irq: Reorder check when the IRQ is already used by someone

[Oleksandr Tyshchenko <olekstysh@xxxxxxxxx>]

On Mon, Dec 5, 2016 at 3:50 PM, Julien Grall <julien.grall@xxxxxxx> 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_tyshchenko@xxxxxxxx>
Signed-off-by: Andrii Anisov <andrii_anisov@xxxxxxxx>
---
 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@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://lists.xen.org/xen-devel