From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: alex.williamson@redhat.com (Alex Williamson) Date: Wed, 12 Aug 2015 12:56:45 -0600 Subject: [PATCH v3 05/10] VFIO: platform: add vfio_platform_is_active In-Reply-To: <1439212864-12954-6-git-send-email-eric.auger@linaro.org> References: <1439212864-12954-1-git-send-email-eric.auger@linaro.org> <1439212864-12954-6-git-send-email-eric.auger@linaro.org> Message-ID: <1439405805.4023.529.camel@redhat.com> To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org On Mon, 2015-08-10 at 15:20 +0200, Eric Auger wrote: > This function returns whether the IRQ is active at irqchip level or > VFIO masked. If either is true, it is considered the IRQ is active. > Currently there is no way to differentiate userspace masked IRQ from > automasked IRQ. There might be false detection of activity. However > it is currently acceptable to have false detection. > > Signed-off-by: Eric Auger > > --- > --- > drivers/vfio/platform/vfio_platform_irq.c | 17 +++++++++++++++++ > 1 file changed, 17 insertions(+) > > diff --git a/drivers/vfio/platform/vfio_platform_irq.c b/drivers/vfio/platform/vfio_platform_irq.c > index a285384..efaee58 100644 > --- a/drivers/vfio/platform/vfio_platform_irq.c > +++ b/drivers/vfio/platform/vfio_platform_irq.c > @@ -205,6 +205,23 @@ static int vfio_platform_set_automasked(struct vfio_platform_irq *irq, > return 0; > } > > +static int vfio_platform_is_active(struct vfio_platform_irq *irq) vfio_platform_irq_is_active()? > +{ > + unsigned long flags; > + bool active, masked, outstanding; > + int ret; > + > + spin_lock_irqsave(&irq->lock, flags); > + > + ret = irq_get_irqchip_state(irq->hwirq, IRQCHIP_STATE_ACTIVE, &active); > + BUG_ON(ret); Why can't we propagate this error to the caller and let them decide? > + masked = irq->masked; > + outstanding = active || masked; > + > + spin_unlock_irqrestore(&irq->lock, flags); > + return outstanding; > +} > + > static void vfio_platform_irq_bypass_stop(struct irq_bypass_producer *prod) > { > }