On 10/05/16 15:35, Andre Przywara wrote:
> Currently the PMU uses a member of the struct vgic_dist directly,
> which not only breaks abstraction, but will fail with the new VGIC.
> Abstract this access in the VGIC header file.
>
> Signed-off-by: Andre Przywara <andre.przywara@xxxxxxx>
> ---
> Hi Eric, Marc,
>
> as this if-statement was quite confusing (it wasn't even the negation
> that was wrong), I rewrote it a bit to be more readable.
> This one works now with PPIs (after fixing kvmtool).
>
> Does that make sense?
>
> Cheers,
> Andre.
>
> include/kvm/arm_vgic.h | 2 ++
> virt/kvm/arm/pmu.c | 19 +++++++++++--------
> 2 files changed, 13 insertions(+), 8 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/include/kvm/arm_vgic.h b/include/kvm/arm_vgic.h
> index 6a98e05..d406f8e 100644
> --- a/include/kvm/arm_vgic.h
> +++ b/include/kvm/arm_vgic.h
> @@ -351,6 +351,8 @@ bool kvm_vgic_map_is_active(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu, unsigned int virt_irq);
> #define irqchip_in_kernel(k) (!!((k)->arch.vgic.in_kernel))
> #define vgic_initialized(k) (!!((k)->arch.vgic.nr_cpus))
> #define vgic_ready(k) ((k)->arch.vgic.ready)
> +#define vgic_valid_spi(k, i) (((i) >= VGIC_NR_PRIVATE_IRQS) && \
> + ((i) < (k)->arch.vgic.nr_irqs))
>
> int vgic_v2_probe(struct device_node *vgic_node,
> const struct vgic_ops **ops,
> diff --git a/virt/kvm/arm/pmu.c b/virt/kvm/arm/pmu.c
> index 575c7aa..6ab9d6b 100644
> --- a/virt/kvm/arm/pmu.c
> +++ b/virt/kvm/arm/pmu.c
> @@ -436,6 +436,11 @@ static int kvm_arm_pmu_v3_init(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu)
> return 0;
> }
>
> +/*
> + * For one VM the interrupt type must be same for each vcpu.
> + * As a PPI, the interrupt number is the same for all vcpus,
> + * while as an SPI it must be a separate number per vcpu.
> + */
> static bool irq_is_valid(struct kvm *kvm, int irq, bool is_ppi)
> {
> int i;
> @@ -457,6 +462,7 @@ static bool irq_is_valid(struct kvm *kvm, int irq, bool is_ppi)
> return true;
> }
>
> +#define irq_is_ppi(irq) ((irq) >= VGIC_NR_SGIS && (irq) < VGIC_NR_PRIVATE_IRQS)
You might as well move this to the VGIC code.
>
> int kvm_arm_pmu_v3_set_attr(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu, struct kvm_device_attr *attr)
> {
> @@ -471,14 +477,11 @@ int kvm_arm_pmu_v3_set_attr(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu, struct kvm_device_attr *attr)
> if (get_user(irq, uaddr))
> return -EFAULT;
>
> - /*
> - * The PMU overflow interrupt could be a PPI or SPI, but for one
> - * VM the interrupt type must be same for each vcpu. As a PPI,
> - * the interrupt number is the same for all vcpus, while as an
> - * SPI it must be a separate number per vcpu.
> - */
> - if (irq < VGIC_NR_SGIS || irq >= vcpu->kvm->arch.vgic.nr_irqs ||
> - !irq_is_valid(vcpu->kvm, irq, irq < VGIC_NR_PRIVATE_IRQS))
> + /* The PMU overflow interrupt can be a PPI or a valid SPI. */
> + if (!(irq_is_ppi(irq) || vgic_valid_spi(vcpu->kvm, irq)))
> + return -EINVAL;
> +
> + if (!irq_is_valid(vcpu->kvm, irq, irq < VGIC_NR_PRIVATE_IRQS))
Why do we need to pass this boolean as a parameter? You could rewrite
irq_is_valid() to generate the is_ppi boolean by itself.
> return -EINVAL;
>
> if (kvm_arm_pmu_irq_initialized(vcpu))
>
Thanks,
M.
--
Jazz is not dead. It just smells funny...
--
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
