Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH v9 05/10] xen/arm: physical irq follow virtual irq

[Julien Grall <julien.grall@xxxxxxxxxx>]

Hi Stefano,

On 01/08/14 18:22, Stefano Stabellini wrote:
> On Mon, 28 Jul 2014, Julien Grall wrote:
> > On 07/28/2014 05:20 PM, Stefano Stabellini wrote:
> > > On Mon, 28 Jul 2014, Julien Grall wrote:
> > > > Hi stefano,
> > > >
> > > > On 07/24/2014 06:33 PM, Stefano Stabellini wrote:
> > > > > +void arch_move_irqs(struct vcpu *v)
> > > > > +{
> > > > > +    const cpumask_t *cpu_mask = cpumask_of(v->processor);
> > > > > +    struct domain *d = v->domain;
> > > > > +    struct pending_irq *p;
> > > > > +    struct vcpu *v_target;
> > > > > +    int i;
> > > > > +
> > > > > +    for ( i = 32; i < d->arch.vgic.nr_lines; i++ )
> > > > Sorry, I didn't spot this error until now.
> > > >
> > > > For the VGIC nr_lines contains the number of *SPIs* rather on the GIC
> > > > structure it's the number of IRQs... the name is very confusing. I have
> > > > a patch to rename nr_lines into nr_spis, along with adding a macro
> > > > vgic_number_lines.
> > > I couldn't parse this sentence.
> > Sorry it was not very clear.
> >
> > > I guess you are saying that vgic.nr_lines doesn't represent the number
> > > of spis?
> > Yes. In the VGIC structure nr_lines = number of SPIs.
> >
> > On GIC structure nr_lines = number of IRQs.
> Wait a second. If in the vgic struct, nr_lines = number of SPIs, then
> the code in this patch is correct as it is, isn't it?
No because your loop starts at 32 and you check against vgic.nr_lines.

The loop should be:

for ( i = 32; i < (d->arch.vgic.nr_lines + 32); i++ )

Otherwise you will forget to migrate the last 32 SPIs.

Regards,

--
Julien Grall

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