[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20160122140154.GD14104@potion.brq.redhat.com>
Date: Fri, 22 Jan 2016 15:01:54 +0100
From: Radim Krcmár <rkrcmar@...hat.com>
To: "Wu, Feng" <feng.wu@...el.com>
Cc: "pbonzini@...hat.com" <pbonzini@...hat.com>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
"kvm@...r.kernel.org" <kvm@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 2/4] KVM: x86: Use vector-hashing to deliver
lowest-priority interrupts
2016-01-22 05:12+0000, Wu, Feng:
>> From: Radim Krčmář [mailto:rkrcmar@...hat.com]
>> 2016-01-20 09:42+0800, Feng Wu:
>> > +{
>> > + u32 mod;
>> > + int i, idx = 0;
>> > +
>> > + mod = vector % dest_vcpus;
>> > +
>> > + for (i = 0; i <= mod; i++) {
>> > + idx = find_next_bit(bitmap, bitmap_size, idx) + 1;
>>
>> I'd remove this "+ 1". Current users don't check for errors and always
>> do "- 1". The new error value could be 'idx = bitmap_size', with u32 as
>> return type.
>>
>
> Does the following code look good to you:
>
> u32 mod;
> int i, idx = -1;
>
> mod = vector % dest_vcpus;
>
> for (i = 0; i <= mod; i++) {
> idx = find_next_bit(bitmap, bitmap_size, idx + 1);
> BUG_ON(idx == bitmap_size);
> }
>
> return idx;
It's ok, thanks.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists