On 22/09/16 13:32, Alexander Graf wrote: > On 09/20/2016 11:21 AM, Marc Zyngier wrote: >> On 19/09/16 18:39, Alexander Graf wrote: >>> >>> On 19.09.16 16:48, Marc Zyngier wrote: >>> >>>>> + >>>>> + /* >>>>> + * So we can just explicitly mask or unmask the IRQ, gaining >>>>> + * more compatibility with oddball irq controllers. >>>>> + */ >>>>> + if (phys_active) >>>>> + disable_percpu_irq(host_vtimer_irq); >>>>> + else >>>>> + enable_percpu_irq(host_vtimer_irq, 0); >>>> Since you are now targeting random irqchips (as opposed to a GIC >>>> specifically), what guarantees that the timer is a per-cpu IRQ? >>> This is the host interrupt controller - and we're already using percpu >>> irqs on it :). Also as it happens the RPi has them percpu (anything else >>> wouldn't make sense...). >> Not really. The RPi is faking percpu interrupts just to have some level >> of compatibility with the host arch timer driver. But nonetheless, if >> you're opening the code to something else than a GIC, then you should >> check that the interrupt you're getting is percpu. > > This should already be covered by request_percpu_irq() in > kvm_timer_hyp_init(), no? Ah, true. Ignore me, then. M. -- Jazz is not dead. It just smells funny... _______________________________________________ kvmarm mailing list kvmarm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.cs.columbia.edu/mailman/listinfo/kvmarm
