| Message ID | 1402076908-26740-3-git-send-email-stefano.stabellini@eu.citrix.com |
|---|---|
| State | New |
| Headers | show |
On Fri, 2014-06-06 at 18:48 +0100, Stefano Stabellini wrote: > Use vgic_get_target_vcpu to retrieve the target vcpu from do_IRQ. > Remove in-code comments about missing implementation of SGI delivery to > vcpus other than 0. You meant SPI I think? What about PPIs? > Signed-off-by: Stefano Stabellini <stefano.stabellini@eu.citrix.com> > > --- > > Changes in v4: > - the mask in gic_route_irq_to_guest is a physical cpu mask, treat it as > such; > - export vgic_get_target_vcpu in a previous patch. > --- > xen/arch/arm/gic.c | 1 - > xen/arch/arm/irq.c | 3 +-- > 2 files changed, 1 insertion(+), 3 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/xen/arch/arm/gic.c b/xen/arch/arm/gic.c > index 92391b4..6f24b14 100644 > --- a/xen/arch/arm/gic.c > +++ b/xen/arch/arm/gic.c > @@ -287,7 +287,6 @@ void gic_route_irq_to_guest(struct domain *d, struct irq_desc *desc, > gic_set_irq_properties(desc->irq, level, cpumask_of(smp_processor_id()), > GIC_PRI_IRQ); > > - /* TODO: do not assume delivery to vcpu0 */ > p = irq_to_pending(d->vcpu[0], desc->irq); > p->desc = desc; > } > diff --git a/xen/arch/arm/irq.c b/xen/arch/arm/irq.c > index a33c797..0fad647 100644 > --- a/xen/arch/arm/irq.c > +++ b/xen/arch/arm/irq.c > @@ -175,8 +175,7 @@ void do_IRQ(struct cpu_user_regs *regs, unsigned int irq, int is_fiq) > desc->status |= IRQ_INPROGRESS; > desc->arch.eoi_cpu = smp_processor_id(); > > - /* XXX: inject irq into all guest vcpus */ > - vgic_vcpu_inject_irq(d->vcpu[0], irq); > + vgic_vcpu_inject_irq(vgic_get_target_vcpu(d->vcpu[0], irq), irq); Would it make sense to push vgic_get_target_vcpu down into vgic_vcpu_inject_irq rather than have all callers need to do it? I'm also wondering if vgic_get_target_vcpu shouldn't take d and not v. Does this do the right thing for PPIs? vgic_get_target_vcpu will just lookup vcpu0's target, not the actual expected target, won't it? (something else must deal with this, or it'd be broken already I suppose) Ian.
On 06/10/2014 01:16 PM, Ian Campbell wrote: > Does this do the right thing for PPIs? vgic_get_target_vcpu will just > lookup vcpu0's target, not the actual expected target, won't it? > (something else must deal with this, or it'd be broken already I > suppose) physical PPIs can't be routed to the guest. We don't have any support for this such things and adding it will be a nightmare (a guest with more VCPUs than the pCPUs...). Regards,
On Tue, 10 Jun 2014, Ian Campbell wrote: > > diff --git a/xen/arch/arm/irq.c b/xen/arch/arm/irq.c > > index a33c797..0fad647 100644 > > --- a/xen/arch/arm/irq.c > > +++ b/xen/arch/arm/irq.c > > @@ -175,8 +175,7 @@ void do_IRQ(struct cpu_user_regs *regs, unsigned int irq, int is_fiq) > > desc->status |= IRQ_INPROGRESS; > > desc->arch.eoi_cpu = smp_processor_id(); > > > > - /* XXX: inject irq into all guest vcpus */ > > - vgic_vcpu_inject_irq(d->vcpu[0], irq); > > + vgic_vcpu_inject_irq(vgic_get_target_vcpu(d->vcpu[0], irq), irq); > > Would it make sense to push vgic_get_target_vcpu down into > vgic_vcpu_inject_irq rather than have all callers need to do it? > > I'm also wondering if vgic_get_target_vcpu shouldn't take d and not v. That could be a good idea. > Does this do the right thing for PPIs? vgic_get_target_vcpu will just > lookup vcpu0's target, not the actual expected target, won't it? > (something else must deal with this, or it'd be broken already I > suppose) As Julien wrote, we don't support routing PPIs to guests.
diff --git a/xen/arch/arm/gic.c b/xen/arch/arm/gic.c index 92391b4..6f24b14 100644 --- a/xen/arch/arm/gic.c +++ b/xen/arch/arm/gic.c @@ -287,7 +287,6 @@ void gic_route_irq_to_guest(struct domain *d, struct irq_desc *desc, gic_set_irq_properties(desc->irq, level, cpumask_of(smp_processor_id()), GIC_PRI_IRQ); - /* TODO: do not assume delivery to vcpu0 */ p = irq_to_pending(d->vcpu[0], desc->irq); p->desc = desc; } diff --git a/xen/arch/arm/irq.c b/xen/arch/arm/irq.c index a33c797..0fad647 100644 --- a/xen/arch/arm/irq.c +++ b/xen/arch/arm/irq.c @@ -175,8 +175,7 @@ void do_IRQ(struct cpu_user_regs *regs, unsigned int irq, int is_fiq) desc->status |= IRQ_INPROGRESS; desc->arch.eoi_cpu = smp_processor_id(); - /* XXX: inject irq into all guest vcpus */ - vgic_vcpu_inject_irq(d->vcpu[0], irq); + vgic_vcpu_inject_irq(vgic_get_target_vcpu(d->vcpu[0], irq), irq); goto out_no_end; }
Use vgic_get_target_vcpu to retrieve the target vcpu from do_IRQ. Remove in-code comments about missing implementation of SGI delivery to vcpus other than 0. Signed-off-by: Stefano Stabellini <stefano.stabellini@eu.citrix.com> --- Changes in v4: - the mask in gic_route_irq_to_guest is a physical cpu mask, treat it as such; - export vgic_get_target_vcpu in a previous patch. --- xen/arch/arm/gic.c | 1 - xen/arch/arm/irq.c | 3 +-- 2 files changed, 1 insertion(+), 3 deletions(-)