From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Stefano Stabellini <stefano.stabellini@eu.citrix.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] xen/arm: introduce
 platform_need_explicit_eoi
Date: Wed, 2 Jul 2014 16:31:55 +0100
Message-ID: <alpine.DEB.2.02.1407021631440.8923@kaball.uk.xensource.com>
References: <1403271316-21635-1-git-send-email-stefano.stabellini@eu.citrix.com>
	<53A440FD.6070303@linaro.org>
	<alpine.DEB.2.02.1406201523380.19982@kaball.uk.xensource.com>
	<53A4496A.4080009@linaro.org>
	<alpine.DEB.2.02.1406201600240.19982@kaball.uk.xensource.com>
	<53A46863.2040701@linaro.org>
	<alpine.DEB.2.02.1406201831270.19982@kaball.uk.xensource.com>
	<CAPnVf8w=Jha60PZEVFS3=fKLayTWwdGzFquUafMcxe0gSUkN=Q@mail.gmail.com>
	<alpine.DEB.2.02.1406211541550.19982@kaball.uk.xensource.com>
	<53A59DDC.50005@linaro.org>
	<alpine.DEB.2.02.1406211617210.19982@kaball.uk.xensource.com>
	<53A5ABD8.8080104@linaro.org>
	<alpine.DEB.2.02.1406231141450.19982@kaball.uk.xensource.com>
	<1403884302.3169.85.camel@kazak.uk.xensource.com>
	<53B13597.70401@linaro.org>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Return-path: <xen-devel-bounces@lists.xen.org>
In-Reply-To: <53B13597.70401@linaro.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.xen.org/cgi-bin/mailman/options/xen-devel>,
	<mailto:xen-devel-request@lists.xen.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Post: <mailto:xen-devel@lists.xen.org>
List-Help: <mailto:xen-devel-request@lists.xen.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.xen.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/xen-devel>,
	<mailto:xen-devel-request@lists.xen.org?subject=subscribe>
Sender: xen-devel-bounces@lists.xen.org
Errors-To: xen-devel-bounces@lists.xen.org
To: Julien Grall <julien.grall@linaro.org>
Cc: xen-devel@lists.xensource.com, apatel@apm.com, Ian Campbell <Ian.Campbell@citrix.com>, psawargaonkar@apm.com, Stefano Stabellini <stefano.stabellini@eu.citrix.com>
List-Id: xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org

On Mon, 30 Jun 2014, Julien Grall wrote:
> On 06/27/2014 04:51 PM, Ian Campbell wrote:
> > On Mon, 2014-06-23 at 11:43 +0100, Stefano Stabellini wrote:
> >> I thought about this concurrency problem and I think I managed to
> >> solve it correctly. The solution I used was introducing a new flag
> >> called "GIC_IRQ_GUEST_MIGRATING". See:
> >>
> >> 1402504032-13267-4-git-send-email-stefano.stabellini@eu.citrix.com
> > 
> > So, I'm not sure whether I should apply this patch now or wait for that
> > series to go in first. What should I do?
> 
> IIRC, I've asked Stefano to rewrote a bit the following paragraph.
> 
> "
> > No need to find the pcpu that needs to write to GICC_DIR, because after
> > "physical irq follow virtual irq" we always inject the virtual irq on
> > the vcpu that is running on the pcpu that received the interrupt.
> "
> 
> The "physical irq follow virtual irq" is part of the migration series
> but this is not the reason that make GICC_DIR working. This is GIC
> specific (even though, I can't find a clearly define behavior in the
> specification).

Yes, I'll rewrite and resend.