| Message ID | 1416822116-9044-1-git-send-email-christoffer.dall@linaro.org |
|---|---|
| State | New |
| Headers | show |
On Mon, Nov 24, 2014 at 12:04:11PM +0000, Andre Przywara wrote: > Hej Christoffer, > > On 24/11/14 09:41, Christoffer Dall wrote: > > When 'injecting' an edge-triggered interrupt with a falling edge we > > shouldn't clear the pending state on the distributor. In fact, we > > don't, because the check in vgic_validate_injection would prevent us > > from ever reaching this bit of code. > > > > Remove the unreachable snippet. > > > > Signed-off-by: Christoffer Dall <christoffer.dall@linaro.org> > > Acked-by: Andre Przywara <andre.przywara@arm.com> > > I agree on this. Would it make sense to rewrite this function a bit to > make it more clearer what happens? I find the nesting of the > if-statements counter-intuitive: I'd prefer to first differentiate > between level and edge triggered and then only check the actual level in > the level-triggered branch. Not sure if it's worth the fuss, though. > I disagree, and it's not ;) -Christoffer
diff --git a/virt/kvm/arm/vgic.c b/virt/kvm/arm/vgic.c index 3aaca49..f45cf16 100644 --- a/virt/kvm/arm/vgic.c +++ b/virt/kvm/arm/vgic.c @@ -1643,8 +1643,6 @@ static bool vgic_update_irq_pending(struct kvm *kvm, int cpuid, vgic_dist_irq_clear_level(vcpu, irq_num); if (!vgic_dist_irq_soft_pend(vcpu, irq_num)) vgic_dist_irq_clear_pending(vcpu, irq_num); - } else { - vgic_dist_irq_clear_pending(vcpu, irq_num); } }
When 'injecting' an edge-triggered interrupt with a falling edge we shouldn't clear the pending state on the distributor. In fact, we don't, because the check in vgic_validate_injection would prevent us from ever reaching this bit of code. Remove the unreachable snippet. Signed-off-by: Christoffer Dall <christoffer.dall@linaro.org> --- virt/kvm/arm/vgic.c | 2 -- 1 file changed, 2 deletions(-)