On 29.01.2026 17:56, Oleksii Kurochko wrote:
>
> On 1/29/26 4:43 PM, Jan Beulich wrote:
>> On 29.01.2026 15:40, Oleksii Kurochko wrote:
>>> --- a/xen/arch/riscv/traps.c
>>> +++ b/xen/arch/riscv/traps.c
>>> @@ -196,6 +196,7 @@ void do_trap(struct cpu_user_regs *cpu_regs)
>>> {
>>> /* Handle interrupt */
>>> unsigned long icause = cause & ~CAUSE_IRQ_FLAG;
>>> + bool intr_handled = true;
>> Of course I don't know what your further plans are here, so maybe doing
>> it this way really is desirable. As the code is right now, I wonder if
>> you couldn't make this a 2-line change, ...
>>
>>> @@ -204,10 +205,12 @@ void do_trap(struct cpu_user_regs *cpu_regs)
>>> break;
>> ... using return here and ...
>>
>>> default:
>>> + intr_handled = false;
>>> break;
>>> }
>>>
>>> - break;
>>> + if ( intr_handled )
>>> + break;
>> ... simply dropping this break altogether.
>
> Well, your change is better but it won't apply to my current code of
> do_trap():
> ....
> default:
> if ( cause & CAUSE_IRQ_FLAG )
> {
> /* Handle interrupt */
> unsigned long icause = cause & ~CAUSE_IRQ_FLAG;
> bool intr_handled = true;
>
> switch ( icause )
> {
> case IRQ_S_EXT:
> intc_handle_external_irqs(cpu_regs);
> break;
> ...
> default:
> intr_handled = false;
> break;
> }
>
> if ( intr_handled )
> break;
> }
>
> do_unexpected_trap(cpu_regs);
> break;
> }
>
> if ( cpu_regs->hstatus & HSTATUS_SPV )
> check_for_pcpu_work();
> }
>
> So if to use return instead of break here, I will miss the call of
> check_for_pcpu_work()
Ah, I see. But how should I have known without the description saying anything
along these lines?
Acked-by: Jan Beulich <[email protected]>
Jan
