On Wed, Jan 28, 2009 at 06:37:36PM +0200, Gleb Natapov wrote: > On Tue, Jan 27, 2009 at 01:41:07PM -0200, Marcelo Tosatti wrote: > > On Tue, Jan 27, 2009 at 03:27:39PM +0200, Gleb Natapov wrote: > > > > -1 here ? > > > > > > > I think 1 is better here. For level=0 we always want to report that interrupt > > > was injected and for the case of edge triggered interrupt and level=1 > > > ioapic_service() will always be called. BTW it seems that expression > > > old_irr != ioapic->irr in: > > > if ((!entry.fields.trig_mode && old_irr != ioapic->irr) > > > || !entry.fields.remote_irr) > > > ret = ioapic_service(ioapic, irq); > > > Will always be true since for edge triggered interrupt irr is always > > > cleared by ioapic_service(). Am I right? > > > > Right, I was thinking about > > > > if (irq >= 0 && irq < IOAPIC_NUM_PINS) { > > > > Should return MASKED if irq is outside the acceptable range? > > > Is this ever can be false? Should we BUG() if irq is out of range? If qemu-kvm passes it ouf range IRQ yes. Its just a nitpicking, ignore it. > > That assumes guests won't mask the interrupt temporarily in the irqchip, > > hope that is OK (as Avi noted earlier guests use CPU to mask irqs > > temporarily, most of the time). > And if a guest masks interrupts it can't complain that some are lost. I > haven't seen Windows masking RTC irq. Makes sense. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe kvm" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html