Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH ARM v5 09/20] mini-os: don't require XEN_HAVE_PV_UPCALL_MASK

[Samuel Thibault <samuel.thibault@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Thomas Leonard, le Thu 26 Jun 2014 12:28:26 +0100, a écrit :
> This isn't available on ARM.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Thomas Leonard <talex5@xxxxxxxxx>

Acked-by: Samuel Thibault <samuel.thibault@xxxxxxxxxxxx>

> ---
>  extras/mini-os/hypervisor.c | 10 ++++++++++
>  1 file changed, 10 insertions(+)
> 
> diff --git a/extras/mini-os/hypervisor.c b/extras/mini-os/hypervisor.c
> index c5de872..1b61d9b 100644
> --- a/extras/mini-os/hypervisor.c
> +++ b/extras/mini-os/hypervisor.c
> @@ -73,18 +73,26 @@ void do_hypervisor_callback(struct pt_regs *regs)
>  
>  void force_evtchn_callback(void)
>  {
> +#ifdef XEN_HAVE_PV_UPCALL_MASK
>      int save;
> +#endif
>      vcpu_info_t *vcpu;
>      vcpu = &HYPERVISOR_shared_info->vcpu_info[smp_processor_id()];
> +#ifdef XEN_HAVE_PV_UPCALL_MASK
>      save = vcpu->evtchn_upcall_mask;
> +#endif
>  
>      while (vcpu->evtchn_upcall_pending) {
> +#ifdef XEN_HAVE_PV_UPCALL_MASK
>          vcpu->evtchn_upcall_mask = 1;
> +#endif
>          barrier();
>          do_hypervisor_callback(NULL);
>          barrier();
> +#ifdef XEN_HAVE_PV_UPCALL_MASK
>          vcpu->evtchn_upcall_mask = save;
>          barrier();
> +#endif
>      };
>  }
>  
> @@ -110,7 +118,9 @@ inline void unmask_evtchn(uint32_t port)
>                &vcpu_info->evtchn_pending_sel) )
>      {
>          vcpu_info->evtchn_upcall_pending = 1;
> +#ifdef XEN_HAVE_PV_UPCALL_MASK
>          if ( !vcpu_info->evtchn_upcall_mask )
> +#endif
>              force_evtchn_callback();
>      }
>  }
> -- 
> 2.0.0
> 

-- 
Samuel
 Créer une hiérarchie supplementaire pour remedier à un problème (?) de
 dispersion est d'une logique digne des Shadocks.
 * BT in: Guide du Cabaliste Usenet - La Cabale vote oui (les Shadocks aussi) *

_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.xen.org/xen-devel