On 2012/8/17 3:33, Toshi Kani wrote:
> On Thu, 2012-08-16 at 18:28 +0800, Hanjun Guo wrote:
>> On 2012/8/13 10:54, Luck, Tony wrote:
>>>> vec = irq_to_vector(irq);
>>>> list_for_each_entry(rte, &info->rtes,
>>>> rte_list) {
>>>> + if (rte->refcnt == NO_REF_RTE)
>>>> + continue;
>>>> +
>>>> iosapic_write(rte->iosapic,
>>>> IOSAPIC_RTE_LOW(rte->rte_index),
>>>> IOSAPIC_MASK|vec);
>>>
>>> This will work - but is it papering over a problem when you removed the
>>> iosapic? Should we really have removed this "rte" from rte_list when the
>>> iosapic was removed?
>>>
>>> -Tony
>>>
>>
>> Hi Tony,
>> Thanks for your comments, and sorry for the late reply.
>>
>> We only set rte->refcnt to NO_REF_RTE if no device attach to this RTE when
>> unregister a GSI, and increase the rte->refcnt if the RTE is already existing
>> when register a GSI, so "rte" will not removed from rte_list when the
>> iosapic is removed.
>
> Hi Hanjun,
>
> I think updating rte->refcnt makes sense as long as rte->iosapic points
> to a valid iosapic entry. It looks odd to me that rte->iosapic is left
> pointing an invalid iosapic entry after this iosapic is removed. So, I
> agree with Tony's concern.
Hi Toshi,
I agree with you and Tony.
I will find a better solution and do some clean up, and then send another patch.
Thanks
Hanjun Guo
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-ia64" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
|