[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index] Re: [Xen-devel] irq_guest_eoi_timer interaction with MSI
On 24/11/08 16:34, "Jan Beulich" <jbeulich@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > Perhaps the other way around: Make PHYSDEVOP_eoi imply an unmask, > as that's what is always happening (whereas not every unmask also wants > an EOI to be signaled). Below is a draft (compile-tested only) patch that, > before coding the guest side, I'd appreciate to get comments on - > especially if it appears reasonable to be done that way, if it meets your > naming and coding preferences (I'm pretty sure it won't), and of course > whether it's obviously broken in some respect. I don't care which way round you do it (PHYSDEVOP_eoi implies unmask, or vice versa) although you had just about convinced me that you should do it the other way round to how you've chosen. I don't really mind either way though. The fixmap stuff is a bit ugly and I would just have done a map_domain_page_global() for 32-bit Xen (good enough as far as I'm concerned). I'm not dead set against your approach if you like it very much, though. Setting the need-a-hypercall bit looks racey. Don't you need to set the bit, then check the guest didn't unmask meanwhile? -- Keir _______________________________________________ Xen-devel mailing list Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.xensource.com/xen-devel
|
![]() |
Lists.xenproject.org is hosted with RackSpace, monitoring our |