On Sun, Jun 22, 2014 at 12:25:02PM +0100, Marc Zyngier wrote: > On 2014-06-14 21:51, Christoffer Dall wrote: > >We have a special bitmap on the distributor struct to keep track > >of when > >level-triggered interrupts are queued on the list registers. This > >was > >named irq_active, which is confusing, because the active state of an > >interrupt as per the GIC spec is a different thing, not specifically > >related to edge-triggered/level-triggered configurations but rather > >indicates an interrupt which has been ack'ed but not yet eoi'ed. > > > >Rename the bitmap and the corresponding accessor functions to > >irq_queued > >to clarify what this is actually used for. > > While I agree that irq_active is confusing, I would tend to object > to irq_queued for similar reasons. Edge interrupts get queued as > well. yeah, but this is never checked for edge-triggered IRQs so I don't find that part confusing. I find the queued word suitable, because we set in in the _queue function and unset it in the unqueue function. > > What this bit does is to allow or forbid resampling of a level > interrupt. > > How about irq_resample instead? That would mandate a small refactor > of the code (a bit set to one would allow resampling, which is the > opposite of the current logic), but would look better, I believe. > > What do you think? > hmm, maybe. Feel like illustrating what you mean exactly in form of a patch? -Christoffer -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe kvm" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
