On Monday 02 March 2009 15:12:00 Sheng Yang wrote:
> On Friday 27 February 2009 21:26:58 Gleb Natapov wrote:
> > On Fri, Feb 27, 2009 at 11:19:09AM +0800, Sheng Yang wrote:
> > > > - *mask = 0;
> > >
> > > I think the caller should not assume anything about the output, so let
> > > function itself do the clean is better. (however, not in this way for
> > > "mask" should be KVM_MAX_VCPUS long.)
> >
> > Ok. I'll leave it although all callers of the function zeroes bitmask
> > anyway.
> >
> > > And, I found some other things are not proper after looking back code,
> > > I would send a patch to fix it (deliver_bitmask in
> > > kvm_get_intr_delivery_bitmask).
> > >
> > > > if (dest_mode == 0) { /* Physical mode. */
> > > > if (dest == 0xFF) { /* Broadcast. */
> > > > for (i = 0; i < KVM_MAX_VCPUS; ++i)
> > > > if (kvm->vcpus[i] && kvm->vcpus[i]->arch.apic)
> > > > - *mask |= 1 << i;
> > > > + __set_bit(i, *mask);
> > >
> > > Should be __set_bit(i, mask)?
> >
> > Oh. Here is updated patch:
>
> Thanks. :)
>
> Acked-by: Sheng Yang <sheng@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Just a reminder that I have merge this patch into the patch title"[PATCH] KVM:
Merge kvm_ioapic_get_delivery_bitmask into kvm_get_intr_delivery_bitmask" with
Gleb's agreement.
Thanks. :)
--
regards
Yang, Sheng
--
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
