On Mon, Oct 26, 2015 at 06:49:51PM +0300, Pavel Fedin wrote:
> Hello!
>
> > > /*
> > > * Reestablish the pending state on the distributor and the
> > > - * CPU interface. It may have already been pending, but that
> > > - * is fine, then we are only setting a few bits that were
> > > - * already set.
> > > - */
> > > - if (lr.state & LR_STATE_PENDING) {
> > > - vgic_dist_irq_set_pending(vcpu, lr.irq);
> >
> > this looks wrong: You should still be setting the pending state on the
> > distributor, perhaps this is an ordering issue with the last patch?
>
> No, explained in the commit msg:
> --- cut ---
> Additionally, remove unnecessary vgic_set_lr() and LR_STATE_PENDING check
> in vgic_unqueue_irqs(), because all these things are now done by the
> following vgic_retire_lr().
> --- cut ---
This does not explain the question I'm raising.
After applying this patch, and before applying your next patch,
unqueueing an IRQ will not restore the pending state on the
distributor, but just throw that piece of state away, which breaks
bisectability and makes it impossible to understand the logic by looking
at this commit in isolation.
Please maintain at least current working semantics on a patch by patch
basis unless it's absolutely impossible to do so.
That's what I meant with an ordering issue with your last patch to which
you so elegantly reply 'No'.
Please rework this.
-Christoffer
--
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
