>>> On 12.10.16 at 16:30, <tianyu....@intel.com> wrote:
> On 10/12/2016 9:19 PM, Jan Beulich wrote:
>>>>> On 12.10.16 at 09:58, <tianyu....@intel.com> wrote:
>>> --- a/xen/drivers/char/console.c
>>> +++ b/xen/drivers/char/console.c
>>> @@ -347,7 +347,7 @@ static void switch_serial_input(void)
>>> static void __serial_rx(char c, struct cpu_user_regs *regs)
>>> if ( xen_rx )
>>> - return handle_keypress(c, regs);
>>> + return handle_keypress(c, regs, true);
>> I think it would be nice to pass true here only when in polling mode,
>> unless you know or can deduce that the a similar problem also exists
>> in IRQ mode. Perhaps you could simply move the !in_irq() here?
> That's a good idea. Thanks.
>>(Of course the new function parameter would then want to be renamed.)
> Since the issue happens when handle_keypress() runs in a timer handler,
> how about to name new parameter "intimer"? __serial_rx() is called in a
> timer handler or interrupt handler. Or do you have other suggestion?
I think "intimer" can be confusing (to be mixed up with timer interrupt).
How about "force_tasklet"?
Xen-devel mailing list