>>> On 12.10.16 at 16:30, <tianyu....@intel.com> wrote: > > On 10/12/2016 9:19 PM, Jan Beulich wrote: >>>>> On 12.10.16 at 09:58, <tianyu....@intel.com> wrote: >>> --- a/xen/drivers/char/console.c >>> +++ b/xen/drivers/char/console.c >>> @@ -347,7 +347,7 @@ static void switch_serial_input(void) >>> static void __serial_rx(char c, struct cpu_user_regs *regs) >>> { >>> if ( xen_rx ) >>> - return handle_keypress(c, regs); >>> + return handle_keypress(c, regs, true); >> >> I think it would be nice to pass true here only when in polling mode, >> unless you know or can deduce that the a similar problem also exists >> in IRQ mode. Perhaps you could simply move the !in_irq() here? > > That's a good idea. Thanks. > >>(Of course the new function parameter would then want to be renamed.) > > Since the issue happens when handle_keypress() runs in a timer handler, > how about to name new parameter "intimer"? __serial_rx() is called in a > timer handler or interrupt handler. Or do you have other suggestion?
I think "intimer" can be confusing (to be mixed up with timer interrupt). How about "force_tasklet"? Jan _______________________________________________ Xen-devel mailing list Xen-devel@lists.xen.org https://lists.xen.org/xen-devel