RE: [PATCH 10/12] evtchn/fifo: use stable fields when recording "last queue" information

[Paul Durrant <xadimgnik@xxxxxxxxx>]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Jan Beulich <jbeulich@xxxxxxxx>
> Sent: 30 September 2020 09:35
> To: paul@xxxxxxx
> Cc: xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; 'Andrew Cooper' 
> <andrew.cooper3@xxxxxxxxxx>; 'George Dunlap'
> <George.Dunlap@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>; 'Ian Jackson' <iwj@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>; 'Julien 
> Grall' <julien@xxxxxxx>;
> 'Wei Liu' <wl@xxxxxxx>; 'Stefano Stabellini' <sstabellini@xxxxxxxxxx>
> Subject: Re: [PATCH 10/12] evtchn/fifo: use stable fields when recording 
> "last queue" information
> 
> On 30.09.2020 09:35, Paul Durrant wrote:
> >> From: Xen-devel <xen-devel-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> On Behalf Of Jan 
> >> Beulich
> >> Sent: 28 September 2020 12:02
> >>
> >> Both evtchn->priority and evtchn->notify_vcpu_id could, prior to recent
> >> locking adjustments, change behind the back of
> >> evtchn_fifo_set_pending(). Neither the queue's priority nor the vCPU's
> >> vcpu_id fields have similar properties, so they seem better suited for
> >> the purpose. In particular they reflect the respective evtchn fields'
> >> values at the time they were used to determine queue and vCPU.
> >>
> >> Signed-off-by: Jan Beulich <jbeulich@xxxxxxxx>
> >
> > I think these changes make the code clearer anyway.
> >
> > Reviewed-by: Paul Durrant <paul@xxxxxxx>
> 
> Thanks. With the change of description in the earlier patch, and with
> this one possibly going in ahead of it, I'll massage the description
> here somewhat, I guess.
> 

That's fine.

  Paul