linux-kernel - Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH v2 01/10] xen: remap GSIs as pirqs when running as initial domain

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <alpine.DEB.2.00.1010051400350.2440@kaball-desktop>
Date:	Tue, 5 Oct 2010 14:11:42 +0100
From:	Stefano Stabellini <stefano.stabellini@...citrix.com>
To:	Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk <konrad.wilk@...cle.com>
CC:	Stefano Stabellini <Stefano.Stabellini@...citrix.com>,
	"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	"xen-devel@...ts.xensource.com" <xen-devel@...ts.xensource.com>,
	Jeremy Fitzhardinge <Jeremy.Fitzhardinge@...rix.com>
Subject: Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH v2 01/10] xen: remap GSIs as pirqs when
 running as initial domain

On Mon, 4 Oct 2010, Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk wrote:
> > +	gsi = xen_register_gsi(gsi,	trigger, polarity);
> 
> What happend here? Tabs-gone-wild?


Oops, I'll fix that.


> > +	/*
> > +	 * stash over-ride to indicate we've been here
> > +	 * and for later update of acpi_gbl_FADT
> > +	 */
> 
> I think that comment is obsolete. We are not stashing anything?

Yes, it is obsolete. I'll remove it.


> >  
> >  int __init pci_xen_init(void)
> >  {
> > -	if (!xen_pv_domain() || xen_initial_domain())
> > + 	if (!xen_pv_domain() || xen_initial_domain())
> 
> What changed? They look exactly the same?
> 

Another editing error unfortunately.


> > +void __init xen_setup_pirqs(void)
> > +{
> > +	int irq;
> > +#ifndef CONFIG_SMP
> > +	int nr_ioapics = 1;
> > +#endif
> 
> Should this be defined in a header instead? Was this nr_ioapics==1
> meant to fall in the '0 == nr_ioapics' to setup the first sixteen
> irqs?
> 
> Is CONFIG_X86_IO_APIC more appropiate than CONFIG_SMP?

I think it was supposed to fix a compilation error in case
CONFIG_X86_IO_APIC is not set, so that in both cases in which an ioapic
is not present in the system or the ioapic support is not compiled in
the kernel we would fall in the '0 == nr_ioapics' code path.
So I guess the right thing to do here would be to replace CONFIG_SMP
with CONFIG_X86_IO_APIC.
I don't think that it is worth moving these three lines into an header
file.

--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/