From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Marc Zyngier Subject: Re: linux-next: manual merge of the kvm-arm tree with Linus' tree Date: Wed, 8 Apr 2015 09:15:13 +0100 Message-ID: <20150408091513.4e676301@why.wild-wind.fr.eu.org> References: <20150318144111.1e56c6d9@canb.auug.org.au> <20150318075537.GC23225@cbox> <552403BF.8090008@redhat.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: <552403BF.8090008@redhat.com> List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: kvmarm-bounces@lists.cs.columbia.edu Sender: kvmarm-bounces@lists.cs.columbia.edu To: Paolo Bonzini Cc: Christoffer Dall , Stephen Rothwell , "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" , "linux-next@vger.kernel.org" , "kvmarm@lists.cs.columbia.edu" List-Id: linux-next.vger.kernel.org On Tue, 7 Apr 2015 17:20:15 +0100 Paolo Bonzini 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. Thanks, M. -- Without deviation from the norm, progress is not possible.