From: Christoffer Dall <christoffer.dall@linaro.org>
To: Marc Zyngier <marc.zyngier@arm.com>
Cc: Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@redhat.com>,
Christoffer Dall <cdall@cs.columbia.edu>,
Stephen Rothwell <sfr@canb.auug.org.au>,
"linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
"linux-next@vger.kernel.org" <linux-next@vger.kernel.org>,
"kvmarm@lists.cs.columbia.edu" <kvmarm@lists.cs.columbia.edu>
Subject: Re: linux-next: manual merge of the kvm-arm tree with Linus' tree
Date: Wed, 8 Apr 2015 12:57:55 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20150408105755.GG4715@cbox> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20150408091513.4e676301@why.wild-wind.fr.eu.org>
On Wed, Apr 08, 2015 at 09:15:13AM +0100, Marc Zyngier wrote:
> On Tue, 7 Apr 2015 17:20:15 +0100
> Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@redhat.com> wrote:
>
> Hi Paolo,
>
> > On 18/03/2015 08:55, Christoffer Dall wrote:
> > > Hi Stephen,
> > >
> > > On Wed, Mar 18, 2015 at 02:41:11PM +1100, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
> > >> Hi all,
> > >>
> > >> Today's linux-next merge of the kvm-arm tree got a conflict in
> > >> virt/kvm/arm/vgic.c between commit ae705930fca6 ("arm/arm64: KVM: Keep
> > >> elrsr/aisr in sync with software model") from Linus' tree and commit
> > >> 71760950bf3d ("arm/arm64: KVM: add a common vgic_queue_irq_to_lr fn")
> > >> from the kvm-arm tree.
> > >>
> > >> I fixed it up (I think - see below) and can carry the fix as necessary
> > >> (no action is required).
> > >>
> > >> --
> > >> Cheers,
> > >> Stephen Rothwell sfr@canb.auug.org.au
> > >>
> > >> diff --cc virt/kvm/arm/vgic.c
> > >> index c9f60f524588,ffd937ca5141..000000000000
> > >> --- a/virt/kvm/arm/vgic.c
> > >> +++ b/virt/kvm/arm/vgic.c
> > >> @@@ -982,9 -1092,7 +1098,8 @@@ bool vgic_queue_irq(struct kvm_vcpu *vc
> > >> if (vlr.source == sgi_source_id) {
> > >> kvm_debug("LR%d piggyback for IRQ%d\n", lr, vlr.irq);
> > >> BUG_ON(!test_bit(lr, vgic_cpu->lr_used));
> > >> - vlr.state |= LR_STATE_PENDING;
> > >> - vgic_set_lr(vcpu, lr, vlr);
> > >> + vgic_queue_irq_to_lr(vcpu, irq, lr, vlr);
> > >> + vgic_sync_lr_elrsr(vcpu, lr, vlr);
> > >> return true;
> > >> }
> > >> }
> > >> @@@ -1001,12 -1109,8 +1116,9 @@@
> > >>
> > >> vlr.irq = irq;
> > >> vlr.source = sgi_source_id;
> > >> - vlr.state = LR_STATE_PENDING;
> > >> - if (!vgic_irq_is_edge(vcpu, irq))
> > >> - vlr.state |= LR_EOI_INT;
> > >> -
> > >> - vgic_set_lr(vcpu, lr, vlr);
> > >> + vlr.state = 0;
> > >> + vgic_queue_irq_to_lr(vcpu, irq, lr, vlr);
> > >> + vgic_sync_lr_elrsr(vcpu, lr, vlr);
> > >>
> > >> return true;
> > >> }
> > >
> > > Looks great, thanks!
> > > -Christoffer
> >
> > Got the same conflict when pulling from the kvm-arm tree, I used
> > a different resolution though:
> >
> > diff --cc virt/kvm/arm/vgic.c
> > index c9f60f524588,b70174e74868..8d550ff14700
> > --- a/virt/kvm/arm/vgic.c
> > +++ b/virt/kvm/arm/vgic.c
> > @@@ -955,6 -1095,25 +1101,26 @@@ static void vgic_retire_disabled_irqs(s
> > }
> > }
> >
> > + static void vgic_queue_irq_to_lr(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu, int irq,
> > + int lr_nr, struct vgic_lr vlr)
> > + {
> > + if (vgic_irq_is_active(vcpu, irq)) {
> > + vlr.state |= LR_STATE_ACTIVE;
> > + kvm_debug("Set active, clear distributor: 0x%x\n", vlr.state);
> > + vgic_irq_clear_active(vcpu, irq);
> > + vgic_update_state(vcpu->kvm);
> > + } else if (vgic_dist_irq_is_pending(vcpu, irq)) {
> > + vlr.state |= LR_STATE_PENDING;
> > + kvm_debug("Set pending: 0x%x\n", vlr.state);
> > + }
> > +
> > + if (!vgic_irq_is_edge(vcpu, irq))
> > + vlr.state |= LR_EOI_INT;
> > +
> > + vgic_set_lr(vcpu, lr_nr, vlr);
> > ++ vgic_sync_lr_elrsr(vcpu, lr_nr, vlr);
> > + }
> > +
> > /*
> > * Queue an interrupt to a CPU virtual interface. Return true on success,
> > * or false if it wasn't possible to queue it.
> > @@@ -982,9 -1141,7 +1148,7 @@@ bool vgic_queue_irq(struct kvm_vcpu *vc
> > if (vlr.source == sgi_source_id) {
> > kvm_debug("LR%d piggyback for IRQ%d\n", lr, vlr.irq);
> > BUG_ON(!test_bit(lr, vgic_cpu->lr_used));
> > - vlr.state |= LR_STATE_PENDING;
> > - vgic_set_lr(vcpu, lr, vlr);
> > - vgic_sync_lr_elrsr(vcpu, lr, vlr);
> > + vgic_queue_irq_to_lr(vcpu, irq, lr, vlr);
> > return true;
> > }
> > }
> > @@@ -1001,12 -1158,8 +1165,8 @@@
> >
> > vlr.irq = irq;
> > vlr.source = sgi_source_id;
> > - vlr.state = LR_STATE_PENDING;
> > - if (!vgic_irq_is_edge(vcpu, irq))
> > - vlr.state |= LR_EOI_INT;
> > -
> > - vgic_set_lr(vcpu, lr, vlr);
> > - vgic_sync_lr_elrsr(vcpu, lr, vlr);
> > + vlr.state = 0;
> > + vgic_queue_irq_to_lr(vcpu, irq, lr, vlr);
> >
> > return true;
> > }
> >
> >
> > Christoffer, this is the same logic as Stephen's resolution, but
> > can you confirm that it makes sense "semantically" as well?
>
> This looks like a sensible resolution to me. I've given it a spin, and
> it seems to behave as expected.
>
Yes, this is semantically slightly nicer in fact.
Thanks,
-Christoffer
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2015-04-08 10:57 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 23+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2015-03-18 3:41 linux-next: manual merge of the kvm-arm tree with Linus' tree Stephen Rothwell
2015-03-18 7:55 ` Christoffer Dall
2015-04-07 16:20 ` Paolo Bonzini
2015-04-08 8:15 ` Marc Zyngier
2015-04-08 10:57 ` Christoffer Dall [this message]
2015-04-16 19:10 ` Christoffer Dall
2015-04-16 19:39 ` Paolo Bonzini
2015-04-16 20:16 ` Christoffer Dall
-- strict thread matches above, loose matches on Subject: below --
2018-01-03 2:38 Stephen Rothwell
2018-01-03 9:50 ` Christoffer Dall
2017-11-06 2:56 Stephen Rothwell
2017-11-06 2:52 Stephen Rothwell
2017-04-10 4:02 Stephen Rothwell
2017-04-10 8:02 ` Christoffer Dall
2014-10-17 1:47 Stephen Rothwell
2014-07-31 6:30 Stephen Rothwell
2014-07-31 12:10 ` Marc Zyngier
[not found] ` <CAEDV+gJ1oSPzgZMO=kdFDNPnzy-EOHGuLxHqTB8KO6d_8yPrxQ@mail.gmail.com>
2014-07-31 12:15 ` Marc Zyngier
2014-07-31 14:23 ` Christoffer Dall
2014-07-31 14:30 ` Marc Zyngier
2014-08-01 5:21 ` Stephen Rothwell
2014-07-31 12:17 ` Stephen Rothwell
2014-07-31 12:41 ` Stephen Rothwell
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20150408105755.GG4715@cbox \
--to=christoffer.dall@linaro.org \
--cc=cdall@cs.columbia.edu \
--cc=kvmarm@lists.cs.columbia.edu \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-next@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=marc.zyngier@arm.com \
--cc=pbonzini@redhat.com \
--cc=sfr@canb.auug.org.au \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).