lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2011]   [Mar]   [9]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
Patch in this message
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [PATCH 09/14] xen: events: push setup of irq<->{evtchn,ipi,virq,pirq} maps into irq_info init functions
On Wed, Mar 09, 2011 at 05:41:21PM +0000, Ian Campbell wrote:
> Encapsulate setup of XXX_to_irq array in the relevant
> xen_irq_info_*_init function.
>
> Signed-off-by: Ian Campbell <ian.campbell@citrix.com>
> ---
> drivers/xen/events.c | 42 +++++++++++++++++++++---------------------
> 1 files changed, 21 insertions(+), 21 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/xen/events.c b/drivers/xen/events.c
> index 72725fa..cf372d4 100644
> --- a/drivers/xen/events.c
> +++ b/drivers/xen/events.c
> @@ -126,6 +126,7 @@ static struct irq_info *info_for_irq(unsigned irq)
>
> /* Constructors for packed IRQ information. */
> static void xen_irq_info_common_init(struct irq_info *info,
> + unsigned irq,
> enum xen_irq_type type,
> unsigned short evtchn,
> unsigned short cpu)
> @@ -136,6 +137,8 @@ static void xen_irq_info_common_init(struct irq_info *info,
> info->type = type;
> info->evtchn = evtchn;
> info->cpu = cpu;
> +
> + evtchn_to_irq[evtchn] = irq;

Is there any case where this would lead to an over-write? Should we
have an
WARN_ON(evtchn_to_irq[evtchn] != -1)

just to check?
> }
>
> static void xen_irq_info_evtchn_init(unsigned irq,
> @@ -143,29 +146,35 @@ static void xen_irq_info_evtchn_init(unsigned irq,
> {
> struct irq_info *info = info_for_irq(irq);
>
> - xen_irq_info_common_init(info, IRQT_EVTCHN, evtchn, 0);
> + xen_irq_info_common_init(info, irq, IRQT_EVTCHN, evtchn, 0);
> }
>
> -static void xen_irq_info_ipi_init(unsigned irq,
> +static void xen_irq_info_ipi_init(unsigned cpu,
> + unsigned irq,
> unsigned short evtchn,
> enum ipi_vector ipi)
> {
> struct irq_info *info = info_for_irq(irq);
>
> - xen_irq_info_common_init(info, IRQT_IPI, evtchn, 0);
> + xen_irq_info_common_init(info, irq, IRQT_IPI, evtchn, 0);
>
> info->u.ipi = ipi;
> +
> + per_cpu(ipi_to_irq, cpu)[ipi] = irq;

Ditto. Should we do a check first to see if we are overwritting anything
but the default value of -1?
> }
>
> -static void xen_irq_info_virq_init(unsigned irq,
> +static void xen_irq_info_virq_init(unsigned cpu,
> + unsigned irq,
> unsigned short evtchn,
> unsigned short virq)
> {
> struct irq_info *info = info_for_irq(irq);
>
> - xen_irq_info_common_init(info, IRQT_VIRQ, evtchn, 0);
> + xen_irq_info_common_init(info, irq, IRQT_VIRQ, evtchn, 0);
>
> info->u.virq = virq;
> +
> + per_cpu(virq_to_irq, cpu)[virq] = irq;
> }
>
> static void xen_irq_info_pirq_init(unsigned irq,
> @@ -177,12 +186,14 @@ static void xen_irq_info_pirq_init(unsigned irq,
> {
> struct irq_info *info = info_for_irq(irq);
>
> - xen_irq_info_common_init(info, IRQT_PIRQ, evtchn, 0);
> + xen_irq_info_common_init(info, irq, IRQT_PIRQ, evtchn, 0);
>
> info->u.pirq.pirq = pirq;
> info->u.pirq.gsi = gsi;
> info->u.pirq.vector = vector;
> info->u.pirq.flags = flags;
> +
> + pirq_to_irq[pirq] = irq;
> }
>
> /*
> @@ -644,7 +655,6 @@ int xen_bind_pirq_gsi_to_irq(unsigned gsi,
>
> xen_irq_info_pirq_init(irq, 0, pirq, gsi, irq_op.vector,
> shareable ? PIRQ_SHAREABLE : 0);
> - pirq_to_irq[pirq] = irq;
>
> out:
> spin_unlock(&irq_mapping_update_lock);
> @@ -682,7 +692,6 @@ int xen_bind_pirq_msi_to_irq(struct pci_dev *dev, struct msi_desc *msidesc,
> handle_level_irq, name);
>
> xen_irq_info_pirq_init(irq, 0, pirq, 0, vector, 0);
> - pirq_to_irq[pirq] = irq;
> ret = set_irq_msi(irq, msidesc);
> if (ret < 0)
> goto error_irq;
> @@ -746,7 +755,6 @@ int bind_evtchn_to_irq(unsigned int evtchn)
> set_irq_chip_and_handler_name(irq, &xen_dynamic_chip,
> handle_fasteoi_irq, "event");
>
> - evtchn_to_irq[evtchn] = irq;
> xen_irq_info_evtchn_init(irq, evtchn);
> }
>
> @@ -779,9 +787,7 @@ static int bind_ipi_to_irq(unsigned int ipi, unsigned int cpu)
> BUG();
> evtchn = bind_ipi.port;
>
> - evtchn_to_irq[evtchn] = irq;
> - xen_irq_info_ipi_init(irq, evtchn, ipi);
> - per_cpu(ipi_to_irq, cpu)[ipi] = irq;
> + xen_irq_info_ipi_init(cpu, irq, evtchn, ipi);
>
> bind_evtchn_to_cpu(evtchn, cpu);
> }
> @@ -814,10 +820,7 @@ int bind_virq_to_irq(unsigned int virq, unsigned int cpu)
> BUG();
> evtchn = bind_virq.port;
>
> - evtchn_to_irq[evtchn] = irq;
> - xen_irq_info_virq_init(irq, evtchn, virq);
> -
> - per_cpu(virq_to_irq, cpu)[virq] = irq;
> + xen_irq_info_virq_init(cpu, irq, evtchn, virq);
>
> bind_evtchn_to_cpu(evtchn, cpu);
> }
> @@ -1120,7 +1123,6 @@ void rebind_evtchn_irq(int evtchn, int irq)
> so there should be a proper type */
> BUG_ON(info->type == IRQT_UNBOUND);
>
> - evtchn_to_irq[evtchn] = irq;
> xen_irq_info_evtchn_init(irq, evtchn);
>
> spin_unlock(&irq_mapping_update_lock);
> @@ -1288,8 +1290,7 @@ static void restore_cpu_virqs(unsigned int cpu)
> evtchn = bind_virq.port;
>
> /* Record the new mapping. */
> - evtchn_to_irq[evtchn] = irq;
> - xen_irq_info_virq_init(irq, evtchn, virq);
> + xen_irq_info_virq_init(cpu, irq, evtchn, virq);
> bind_evtchn_to_cpu(evtchn, cpu);
> }
> }
> @@ -1313,8 +1314,7 @@ static void restore_cpu_ipis(unsigned int cpu)
> evtchn = bind_ipi.port;
>
> /* Record the new mapping. */
> - evtchn_to_irq[evtchn] = irq;
> - xen_irq_info_ipi_init(irq, evtchn, ipi);
> + xen_irq_info_ipi_init(cpu, irq, evtchn, ipi);
> bind_evtchn_to_cpu(evtchn, cpu);
> }
> }
> --
> 1.5.6.5


\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2011-03-10 05:59    [W:0.145 / U:54.604 seconds]
©2003-2017 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site