[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH v5 07/12] x86/apic: Unify interrupt mode setup for UP system
- To: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- From: Dou Liyang <douly.fnst@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Mon, 3 Jul 2017 10:34:40 +0800
- Cc: bhe@xxxxxxxxxx, peterz@xxxxxxxxxxxxx, izumi.taku@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx, x86@xxxxxxxxxx, linux-kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, ebiederm@xxxxxxxxxxxx, hpa@xxxxxxxxx, xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, boris.ostrovsky@xxxxxxxxxx, mingo@xxxxxxxxxx
- Delivery-date: Mon, 03 Jul 2017 02:34:57 +0000
- List-id: Xen developer discussion <xen-devel.lists.xen.org>
Hi Thomas,
At 07/03/2017 02:19 AM, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
On Fri, 30 Jun 2017, Dou Liyang wrote:
static inline int apic_force_enable(unsigned long addr)
diff --git a/arch/x86/kernel/apic/apic.c b/arch/x86/kernel/apic/apic.c
index 0601054..9bf7e95 100644
--- a/arch/x86/kernel/apic/apic.c
+++ b/arch/x86/kernel/apic/apic.c
@@ -1198,6 +1198,10 @@ static int __init apic_intr_mode_select(int *upmode)
}
#endif
+#ifdef CONFIG_UP_LATE_INIT
+ *upmode = true;
+#endif
This is really wrong. The upmode decision, which is required for calling
apic_bsp_setup() should not happen here, really. As I told you in the
previous patch, use the return code and then you can make further decisions
in apic_intr_mode_init().
Really thanks for your detail explaining, I learned more than i read
from books about the programming skill.
And you do it there w/o any ifdeffery:
static void apic_intr_mode_init(void)
{
bool upmode = IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_UP_LATE_INIT);
switch (....) {
case XXXX:
upmode = true;
....
}
apic_bsp_setup(upmode);
}
This looks more beautiful than mine. I will use it in the next version.
Thanks,
dou.
Thanks,
tglx
_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://lists.xen.org/xen-devel
|
