Re: [PATCH] x86/irq: Fix comment on IRQ vector layout
From: Jacob Pan
Date: Tue Jun 18 2024 - 16:57:23 EST
On Tue, 18 Jun 2024 20:13:20 +0000, Sohil Mehta <sohil.mehta@xxxxxxxxx>
wrote:
> commit f5a3562ec9dd ("x86/irq: Reserve a per CPU IDT vector for posted
> MSIs") changed the first system vector from LOCAL_TIMER_VECTOR to
> POSTED_MSI_NOTIFICATION_VECTOR. Reflect this change in the vector layout
> comment as well.
>
> However, instead of pointing to the specific vector, use the
> FIRST_SYSTEM_VECTOR indirection which essentially refers to the same.
> This would avoid unnecessary modifications to the same comment whenever
> additional system vectors get added.
>
> Signed-off-by: Sohil Mehta <sohil.mehta@xxxxxxxxx>
> ---
> arch/x86/include/asm/irq_vectors.h | 4 ++--
> 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/arch/x86/include/asm/irq_vectors.h
> b/arch/x86/include/asm/irq_vectors.h index 13aea8fc3d45..970a89e7c6b7
> 100644 --- a/arch/x86/include/asm/irq_vectors.h
> +++ b/arch/x86/include/asm/irq_vectors.h
> @@ -18,8 +18,8 @@
> * Vectors 0 ... 31 : system traps and exceptions - hardcoded events
> * Vectors 32 ... 127 : device interrupts
> * Vector 128 : legacy int80 syscall interface
> - * Vectors 129 ... LOCAL_TIMER_VECTOR-1
> - * Vectors LOCAL_TIMER_VECTOR ... 255 : special interrupts
> + * Vectors 129 ... FIRST_SYSTEM_VECTOR-1
Should this range be explicitly labeled as "device interrupts"?
Thanks,
Jacob