Re: Fix bind_irq_vector() destination

[Sheng Yang <sheng@linux.intel.com>]

On Thursday 26 August 2010 17:22:29 Keir Fraser wrote:
> By the way, could an IRQ's 'domain' be given a better name in Xen? We
> already have a meaning for domain, and it makes the code very confusing!
> Can we call it cpu_affinity or cpu_binding, or something a bit more
> meaningful and distinguishable?

Or use cpu_mask directly? Would send an separate patch if you like, for whatever 
name. :)

--
regards
Yang, Sheng

> 
>  -- Keir
> 
> On 26/08/2010 10:14, "Sheng Yang" <sheng@linux.intel.com> wrote:
> > The "mask" covered all online cpus in the "domain". It should be used as
> > destination later, instead of using "domain" directly.
> > 
> > Signed-off-by: Sheng Yang <sheng@linux.intel.com>
> > 
> > --
> > diff --git a/xen/arch/x86/irq.c b/xen/arch/x86/irq.c
> > --- a/xen/arch/x86/irq.c
> > +++ b/xen/arch/x86/irq.c
> > @@ -86,14 +86,14 @@
> > 
> >      cpus_and(mask, domain, cpu_online_map);
> >      if (cpus_empty(mask))
> >      
> >          return -EINVAL;
> > 
> > -    if ((cfg->vector == vector) && cpus_equal(cfg->domain, domain))
> > +    if ((cfg->vector == vector) && cpus_equal(cfg->domain, mask))
> > 
> >          return 0;
> >      
> >      if (cfg->vector != IRQ_VECTOR_UNASSIGNED)
> >      
> >          return -EBUSY;
> >      
> >      for_each_cpu_mask(cpu, mask)
> >      
> >          per_cpu(vector_irq, cpu)[vector] = irq;
> >      
> >      cfg->vector = vector;
> > 
> > -    cfg->domain = domain;
> > +    cfg->domain = mask;
> > 
> >      irq_status[irq] = IRQ_USED;
> >      if (IO_APIC_IRQ(irq))
> >      
> >          irq_vector[irq] = vector;