From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Ian Campbell Subject: Re: [PATCH v8 07/10] xen/arm: remove workaround to inject evtchn_irq on irq enable Date: Wed, 23 Jul 2014 17:16:09 +0100 Message-ID: <1406132169.23159.1.camel@kazak.uk.xensource.com> References: <1405016003-19131-7-git-send-email-stefano.stabellini@eu.citrix.com> <1405601425.31127.12.camel@kazak.uk.xensource.com> <1406131866.23159.0.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: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: xen-devel-bounces@lists.xen.org Errors-To: xen-devel-bounces@lists.xen.org To: Stefano Stabellini Cc: julien.grall@citrix.com, xen-devel@lists.xensource.com List-Id: xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org On Wed, 2014-07-23 at 17:12 +0100, Stefano Stabellini wrote: > On Wed, 23 Jul 2014, Ian Campbell wrote: > > On Wed, 2014-07-23 at 17:09 +0100, Stefano Stabellini wrote: > > > On Wed, 23 Jul 2014, Stefano Stabellini wrote: > > > > On Thu, 17 Jul 2014, Ian Campbell wrote: > > > > > On Thu, 2014-07-10 at 19:13 +0100, Stefano Stabellini wrote: > > > > > > evtchn_upcall_pending is already set by common code at vcpu creation, > > > > > > therefore on ARM we also need to call vgic_vcpu_inject_irq for it. > > > > > > Currently we do that from vgic_enable_irqs as a workaround. > > > > > > > > > > Perhaps we should gate these on evtchn_upcall_pending then? That would > > > > > make it pretty obvious in most places what it was for. > > > > > > > > > > Other than that suggestion and Julien's request for a comment this looks > > > > > good to me. > > > > > > > > Makes sense, I'll make the changes > > > > > > I take it back: checking evtchn_upcall_pending wouldn't work because it > > > hasn't been set yet. I think it's best not to introduce a dependency on > > > the order of the calls. > > > > Then shouldn't whatever is setting evtchn_upcall_pending be doing the > > inject? > > That is common code, hence the reason for this patch... Some sort of arch callback at that point doesn't seem unreasonable.