On Tue, Jun 08, 2010 at 01:55:03PM -0400, Chris Lalancette wrote:
> Otherwise we might try to deliver a timer interrupt to a cpu that
> can't possibly handle it.
>
> Signed-off-by: Chris Lalancette <clalance@xxxxxxxxxx>
> ---
> virt/kvm/irq_comm.c | 2 +-
> 1 files changed, 1 insertions(+), 1 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/virt/kvm/irq_comm.c b/virt/kvm/irq_comm.c
> index 52f412f..06cf61e 100644
> --- a/virt/kvm/irq_comm.c
> +++ b/virt/kvm/irq_comm.c
> @@ -100,7 +100,7 @@ int kvm_irq_delivery_to_apic(struct kvm *kvm, struct kvm_lapic *src,
> if (r < 0)
> r = 0;
> r += kvm_apic_set_irq(vcpu, irq);
> - } else {
> + } else if (kvm_lapic_enabled(vcpu)) {
> if (!lowest)
> lowest = vcpu;
> else if (kvm_apic_compare_prio(vcpu, lowest) < 0)
Shouldn't we check kvm_lapic_enabled(vcpu) at the beginning of the loop?
Something like:
if (!kvm_apic_present(vcpu) || !kvm_lapic_enabled(vcpu))
continue;
--
Gleb.
--
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
