On 04/25/2013 04:58:51 AM, Alexander Graf wrote:
On 19.04.2013, at 20:02, Scott Wood wrote:
> On 04/19/2013 09:06:26 AM, Alexander Graf wrote:
>> + if (notify_eoi != -1) {
>> + spin_unlock_irq(&opp->lock);
>> + kvm_notify_acked_irq(opp->kvm, 0, notify_eoi);
>> + spin_lock_irq(&opp->lock);
>> + }
>
> I'd rather not have the "_irq" here, which could break if we enter
this patch via an "_irqsave" (I realize there currently is no such
path that reaches EOI emulation).
>
> Will we ever set notify_eoi when addr != EOI? I'm wondering why it
was moved out of the switch statement, instead of being put at the
end of the case EOI: code.
I doubt it, but that's for the compiler to optimize away. I found it
cleaner for some reason to put it down there. I don't think it really
matters.
Cleanliness is my concern as well. It doesn't seem clean to
arbitrarily split up the EOI implementation.
-Scott
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe kvm" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
