Re: [PATCH 11/14] xen: events: dynamically allocate irq infostructures

[Ian Campbell]

On Thu, 2011-03-10 at 05:27 +0000, Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk wrote:
> > @@ -649,10 +653,9 @@ int xen_bind_pirq_gsi_to_irq(unsigned gsi,
> >  
> >  	spin_lock(&irq_mapping_update_lock);
> >  
> > -	if ((pirq > nr_irqs) || (gsi > nr_irqs)) {
> > -		printk(KERN_WARNING "xen_map_pirq_gsi: %s %s is incorrect!\n",
> > -			pirq > nr_irqs ? "pirq" :"",
> > -			gsi > nr_irqs ? "gsi" : "");
> > +	if (pirq > nr_irqs) {
> > +		printk(KERN_WARNING "xen_map_pirq_gsi: pirq %d > nr_irqs %d!\n",
> > +		       pirq, nr_irqs);
> 
> Looks like this belongs to another patch?

To be honest I'm not entirely sure what that check was protecting
anyway. Possibly it comes from a time when the GSI<->IRQ was 1-1 and
prevented us from spilling off the end of the irq_info array.

It may be that it is safe to have gsi > nr_irqs in an earlier patch in
this series (possibly "xen: events: maintain a list of Xen interrupts")
or even in one of my earlier series which switched to using the core
interrupt allocation logic and/or removed the 1-1 mapping above
nr_irqs_gsi in certain cases.

Anyway, this is the first patch where I'm pretty sure it is safe to
allow GSI > nr_irqs since there are no nr_irqs based limitations left
apart from the pirq one.

Ian.

--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/