On 10.05.24 12:32, Chen, Jiqian wrote:
On 2024/5/10 18:21, Jürgen Groß wrote:
On 10.05.24 12:13, Chen, Jiqian wrote:
On 2024/5/10 17:53, Jürgen Groß wrote:
On 10.05.24 11:06, Chen, Jiqian wrote:
Hi,
On 2024/5/10 14:46, Jürgen Groß wrote:
On 19.04.24 05:36, Jiqian Chen wrote:
+
+ info->type = IRQT_PIRQ;
I am considering whether I need to use a new type(like IRQT_GSI) here to distinguish with IRQT_PIRQ, because function restore_pirqs will process all IRQT_PIRQ.
restore_pirqs() already considers gsi == 0 to be not GSI related. Isn't this
enough?
No, it is not enough.
xen_pvh_add_gsi_irq_map adds the mapping of gsi and irq, but the value of gsi is not 0,
once restore_pirqs is called, it will do PHYSDEVOP_map_pirq for that gsi, but in pvh dom0, we shouldn't do PHYSDEVOP_map_pirq.
Okay, then add a new flag to info->u.pirq.flags for that purpose?
I feel like adding "new flag to info->u.pirq.flags" is not as good as adding " new type to info->type".
Because in restore_pirqs, it considers " info->type != IRQT_PIRQ", if adding " new flag to info->u.pirq.flags", we need to add a new condition in restore_pirqs.
And actually this mapping(gsi and irq of pvh) doesn't have pirq, so it is not suitable to add to u.pirq.flags.
Does this mean there is no other IRQT_PIRQ related activity relevant for those
GSIs/IRQs? In that case I agree to add IRQT_GSI.
Juergen
