On Tue, 20 Jun 2017, Dou Liyang wrote:
> At 06/20/2017 07:37 AM, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> [...]
> >
> > +/**
> > + * irq_fixup_move_pending - Cleanup irq move pending from a dying CPU
> > + * @desc: Interrupt descpriptor to clean up
> > + * @force_clear: If set clear the move pending bit unconditionally.
> > + * If not set, clear it only when the dying CPU is the
> > + * last one in the pending mask.
> > + *
> > + * Returns true if the pending bit was set and the pending mask contains an
> > + * online CPU other than the dying CPU.
> > + */
> > +bool irq_fixup_move_pending(struct irq_desc *desc, bool force_clear)
> > +{
> > + struct irq_data *data = irq_desc_get_irq_data(desc);
> > +
> > + if (!irqd_is_setaffinity_pending(data))
> > + return false;
> > +
> > + /*
> > + * The outgoing CPU might be the last online target in a pending
> > + * interrupt move. If that's the case clear the pending move bit.
> > + */
> > + if (cpumask_any_and(desc->pending_mask, cpu_online_mask) > nr_cpu_ids)
> > {
>
> Should we consider the case of "=nr_cpu_ids" here, like:
>
> cpumask_any_and(desc->pending_mask, cpu_online_mask) >= nr_cpu_ids
Yes, indeed. > is wrong. Good catch!
Thanks,
tglx
