On 02/04/19 11:08, Liran Alon wrote:
>> -
>> - if (((entry >> IOAPIC_LVT_TRIGGER_MODE_SHIFT) & 1) !=
>> - IOAPIC_TRIGGER_LEVEL) {
>> + if (!(entry & IOAPIC_LVT_REMOTE_IRR)) {
>> continue;
>> }
> I think above “if” of checking remote-irr should just be removed.
> But the rest seems good :)
> It seems more logical, as the condition is now the opposite of ioapic_set_irq: ioapic_set_irq services the interrupt if remote-irr = 0, EOI does it if remote-irr = 1. Paolo
