From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Ian Campbell Subject: Re: [PATCH-4.5 v2 0/10] remove maintenance interrupts Date: Tue, 18 Mar 2014 16:10:56 +0000 Message-ID: <1395159056.12847.79.camel@kazak.uk.xensource.com> References: <53011E4D.5050908@linaro.org> <1395158551.12847.77.camel@kazak.uk.xensource.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: <1395158551.12847.77.camel@kazak.uk.xensource.com> List-Unsubscribe: , List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: xen-devel-bounces@lists.xen.org Errors-To: xen-devel-bounces@lists.xen.org To: Julien Grall Cc: Julien Grall , xen-devel@lists.xensource.com, Stefano Stabellini List-Id: xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org On Tue, 2014-03-18 at 16:02 +0000, Ian Campbell wrote: > On Sun, 2014-02-16 at 20:23 +0000, Julien Grall wrote: > > Hi Stefano, > > > > On 14/02/14 15:50, Stefano Stabellini wrote: > > > Hi all, > > > this patch series removes any needs for maintenance interrupts for both > > > hardware and software interrupts in Xen. > > > It achieves the goal by using the GICH_LR_HW bit for hardware interrupts > > > and by checking the status of the GICH_LR registers on return to guest, > > > clearing the registers that are invalid and handling the lifecycle of > > > the corresponding interrupts in Xen data structures. > > > > To keep track here, I have tried the patch series on top of the latest > > Xen. Booting Xen and Dom0 is slower with this patch series. > > Presumably lots slower or you wouldn't have noticed. > > Stefano, I started reviewing before I saw this -- should I continue or > is it worth waiting for a v3? Julien tells me there was a v3, but if I received it then I have misfiled it because I can't find it anywhere. Would you mind resending? Sorry for the hassle. Ian.