> -----Original Message----- > From: Jan Beulich <jbeul...@suse.com> > Sent: 10 March 2020 13:57 > To: p...@xen.org > Cc: xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org; Varad Gautam <v...@amazon.de>; Julien > Grall <jul...@xen.org>; Roger > Pau Monné <roger....@citrix.com>; Andrew Cooper <andrew.coop...@citrix.com> > Subject: Re: [PATCH v5] x86: irq: Do not BUG_ON multiple unbind calls for > shared pirqs > > On 10.03.2020 13:43, p...@xen.org wrote: > > v5: > > - BUG_ON(!shareable) rather than ASSERT(shareable) > > - Drop ASSERT on nr_guests > > Why drop, rather than move ... > > > --- a/xen/arch/x86/irq.c > > +++ b/xen/arch/x86/irq.c > > @@ -1680,9 +1680,22 @@ static irq_guest_action_t *__pirq_guest_unbind( > > > > BUG_ON(!(desc->status & IRQ_GUEST)); > > > > - for ( i = 0; (i < action->nr_guests) && (action->guest[i] != d); i++ ) > > - continue; > > - BUG_ON(i == action->nr_guests); > > + for ( i = 0; i < action->nr_guests; i++ ) > > + if ( action->guest[i] == d ) > > + break; > > + > > + if ( i == action->nr_guests ) /* No matching entry */ > > + { > > ... back here? (This would be easy enough to take care of while > committing, iff we decided to go with this variant.)
Ok, let's see how your alternative goes. Paul > > Jan _______________________________________________ Xen-devel mailing list Xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org https://lists.xenproject.org/mailman/listinfo/xen-devel