Hi Artem,
Title: It would be good to specify the subsystem you modify.
arm: vgic: ...
On 24/05/18 16:24, Artem Mygaiev wrote:
vgic_vcpu_pending_irq() uses find_next_bit() library function with
single 'unsigned long' variable, while it is designed to work with
memory regions and offsets. It would be more correct to use the
find_first_bit() function instead.
The commit message sounds like it is wrong to use find_next_bit().
However, as I mentioned earlier, find_first_bit() is just a wrapper of
find_next_bit() on Arm64.
So I would reword the commit message as:
"arm: vgic: Use find_first_bit instead of find_next_bit when possible
find_next_bit(foo, sz, 0) is equivalent to find_first_bit(foo, sz). The
latter is easier to understand. Some architecture may also have a
optimized version of find_first_bit(...). So replace the occurrence of
find_next_bit in vgic_vcpu_pending_irq()."
Cheers,
Signed-off-by: Artem Mygaiev <[email protected]>
diff --git a/xen/arch/arm/gic-vgic.c b/xen/arch/arm/gic-vgic.c
index d831b35525..fd63906e9b 100644
--- a/xen/arch/arm/gic-vgic.c
+++ b/xen/arch/arm/gic-vgic.c
@@ -362,7 +362,7 @@ int vgic_vcpu_pending_irq(struct vcpu *v)
ASSERT(v == current);
mask_priority = gic_hw_ops->read_vmcr_priority();
- active_priority = find_next_bit(&apr, 32, 0);
+ active_priority = find_first_bit(&apr, 32);
spin_lock_irqsave(&v->arch.vgic.lock, flags);
--
Julien Grall
_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.xenproject.org/mailman/listinfo/xen-devel
