From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Christoffer Dall Subject: Re: linux-next: manual merge of the kvm-arm tree with Linus' tree Date: Wed, 8 Apr 2015 12:57:55 +0200 Message-ID: <20150408105755.GG4715@cbox> References: <20150318144111.1e56c6d9@canb.auug.org.au> <20150318075537.GC23225@cbox> <552403BF.8090008@redhat.com> <20150408091513.4e676301@why.wild-wind.fr.eu.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Return-path: Received: from mail-lb0-f172.google.com ([209.85.217.172]:34331 "EHLO mail-lb0-f172.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751904AbbDHK55 (ORCPT ); Wed, 8 Apr 2015 06:57:57 -0400 Received: by lbcga7 with SMTP id ga7so14212821lbc.1 for ; Wed, 08 Apr 2015 03:57:56 -0700 (PDT) Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20150408091513.4e676301@why.wild-wind.fr.eu.org> Sender: linux-next-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: To: Marc Zyngier Cc: Paolo Bonzini , Christoffer Dall , Stephen Rothwell , "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" , "linux-next@vger.kernel.org" , "kvmarm@lists.cs.columbia.edu" On Wed, Apr 08, 2015 at 09:15:13AM +0100, Marc Zyngier wrote: > 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. > Yes, this is semantically slightly nicer in fact. Thanks, -Christoffer