Hi Marc,
On 6/11/21 5:38 PM, Alexandru Elisei wrote:
> Hi Marc,
>
> On 6/1/21 11:39 AM, Marc Zyngier wrote:
>> As it turns out, not all the interrupt controllers are able to
>> expose a vGIC maintenance interrupt that can be independently
>> enabled/disabled.
>>
>> And to be fair, it doesn't really matter as all we require is
>> for the interrupt to kick us out of guest mode out way or another.
>>
>> To that effect, add gic_kvm_info.no_maint_irq_mask for an interrupt
>> controller to advertise the lack of masking.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Marc Zyngier <maz@xxxxxxxxxx>
>> ---
>> arch/arm64/kvm/vgic/vgic-init.c | 8 +++++++-
>> include/linux/irqchip/arm-vgic-info.h | 2 ++
>> 2 files changed, 9 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/arch/arm64/kvm/vgic/vgic-init.c b/arch/arm64/kvm/vgic/vgic-init.c
>> index 2fdb65529594..6752d084934d 100644
>> --- a/arch/arm64/kvm/vgic/vgic-init.c
>> +++ b/arch/arm64/kvm/vgic/vgic-init.c
>> @@ -519,12 +519,15 @@ void kvm_vgic_init_cpu_hardware(void)
>> */
>> int kvm_vgic_hyp_init(void)
>> {
>> + bool has_mask;
>> int ret;
>>
>> if (!gic_kvm_info)
>> return -ENODEV;
>>
>> - if (!gic_kvm_info->maint_irq) {
>> + has_mask = !gic_kvm_info->no_maint_irq_mask;
> This double negative is pretty awkward, I suppose this was done to avoid changes
> to the gic drivers, because the default value is 0 (false). Just an idea, maybe
> renaming it to maint_irq_unmaskable would be more readable?
Actually, after another look, the current name stopped looking awkward to me.
Thanks,
Alex
