On Thu, 2011年03月10日 at 05:33 +0000, Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk wrote:
> > int xen_irq_from_pirq(unsigned pirq)
> > {
> > - return pirq_to_irq[pirq];
> > + int irq;
> > +
> > + struct irq_info *info;
> > +
> > + spin_lock(&irq_mapping_update_lock);
> > +
> > + list_for_each_entry(info, &xen_irq_list_head, list) {
> > + if (info == NULL || info->type != IRQT_PIRQ)
> > + continue;
> > + irq = info->irq;
> > + if (info->u.pirq.pirq == pirq)
> > + goto out;
> > + }
> > + irq = -1;
> > +out:
> > + spin_lock(&irq_mapping_update_lock);
> > +
> > + return -1;
>
> Shouldn't this be:
>
> return irq
Yes. The impact of not doing so is that xen_hvm_setup_msi_irqs would
allocate a fresh PIRQ each time an MSI was reused, instead of resuing
the old one -- i.e. it's a leak. I retested PVHVM PCI hotplug with the
following patch.
> How come you are using the spin_lock here, but not
> in other places when iterating over the xen_irq_list_head?
Those other places already hold the lock in their caller (or are known
to be single threaded -- e.g. resume). Callers of xen_irq_from_pirq do
not hold the lock.
Ian.
8<------------------------
>From 9b1686b874c4893a3b014e400185940dcba43676 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Ian Campbell <ian.campbell@xxxxxxxxxx>
Date: 2011年3月10日 08:54:06 +0000
Subject: [PATCH] xen: events: fix return value from xen_irq_from_pirq
Signed-off-by: Ian Campbell <ian.campbell@xxxxxxxxxx>
---
 drivers/xen/events.c | 2 +-
 1 files changed, 1 insertions(+), 1 deletions(-)
diff --git a/drivers/xen/events.c b/drivers/xen/events.c
index 77c2b43..dc5b575 100644
--- a/drivers/xen/events.c
+++ b/drivers/xen/events.c
@@ -765,7 +765,7 @@ int xen_irq_from_pirq(unsigned pirq)
 out:
 spin_lock(&irq_mapping_update_lock);
 
- return -1;
+ return irq;
 }
 
 
-- 
1.5.6.5
_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.xensource.com/xen-devel