On Wed, Apr 08, 2015 at 09:15:13AM +0100, Marc Zyngier wrote:
> On Tue, 7 Apr 2015 17:20:15 +0100
> Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> Hi Paolo,
>
> > On 18/03/2015 08:55, Christoffer Dall wrote:
> > > Hi Stephen,
> > >
> > > On Wed, Mar 18, 2015 at 02:41:11PM +1100, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
> > >> Hi all,
> > >>
> > >> Today's linux-next merge of the kvm-arm tree got a conflict in
> > >> virt/kvm/arm/vgic.c between commit ae705930fca6 ("arm/arm64: KVM: Keep
> > >> elrsr/aisr in sync with software model") from Linus' tree and commit
> > >> 71760950bf3d ("arm/arm64: KVM: add a common vgic_queue_irq_to_lr fn")
> > >> from the kvm-arm tree.
> > >>
> > >> I fixed it up (I think - see below) and can carry the fix as necessary
> > >> (no action is required).
> > >>
> > >> --
> > >> Cheers,
> > >> Stephen Rothwell sfr@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> > >>
> > >> diff --cc virt/kvm/arm/vgic.c
> > >> index c9f60f524588,ffd937ca5141..000000000000
> > >> --- a/virt/kvm/arm/vgic.c
> > >> +++ b/virt/kvm/arm/vgic.c
> > >> @@@ -982,9 -1092,7 +1098,8 @@@ bool vgic_queue_irq(struct kvm_vcpu *vc
> > >> if (vlr.source == sgi_source_id) {
> > >> kvm_debug("LR%d piggyback for IRQ%d\n", lr, vlr.irq);
> > >> BUG_ON(!test_bit(lr, vgic_cpu->lr_used));
> > >> - vlr.state |= LR_STATE_PENDING;
> > >> - vgic_set_lr(vcpu, lr, vlr);
> > >> + vgic_queue_irq_to_lr(vcpu, irq, lr, vlr);
> > >> + vgic_sync_lr_elrsr(vcpu, lr, vlr);
> > >> return true;
> > >> }
> > >> }
> > >> @@@ -1001,12 -1109,8 +1116,9 @@@
> > >>
> > >> vlr.irq = irq;
> > >> vlr.source = sgi_source_id;
> > >> - vlr.state = LR_STATE_PENDING;
> > >> - if (!vgic_irq_is_edge(vcpu, irq))
> > >> - vlr.state |= LR_EOI_INT;
> > >> -
> > >> - vgic_set_lr(vcpu, lr, vlr);
> > >> + vlr.state = 0;
> > >> + vgic_queue_irq_to_lr(vcpu, irq, lr, vlr);
> > >> + vgic_sync_lr_elrsr(vcpu, lr, vlr);
> > >>
> > >> return true;
> > >> }
> > >
> > > Looks great, thanks!
> > > -Christoffer
> >
> > Got the same conflict when pulling from the kvm-arm tree, I used
> > a different resolution though:
> >
> > diff --cc virt/kvm/arm/vgic.c
> > index c9f60f524588,b70174e74868..8d550ff14700
> > --- a/virt/kvm/arm/vgic.c
> > +++ b/virt/kvm/arm/vgic.c
> > @@@ -955,6 -1095,25 +1101,26 @@@ static void vgic_retire_disabled_irqs(s
> > }
> > }
> >
> > + static void vgic_queue_irq_to_lr(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu, int irq,
> > + int lr_nr, struct vgic_lr vlr)
> > + {
> > + if (vgic_irq_is_active(vcpu, irq)) {
> > + vlr.state |= LR_STATE_ACTIVE;
> > + kvm_debug("Set active, clear distributor: 0x%x\n", vlr.state);
> > + vgic_irq_clear_active(vcpu, irq);
> > + vgic_update_state(vcpu->kvm);
> > + } else if (vgic_dist_irq_is_pending(vcpu, irq)) {
> > + vlr.state |= LR_STATE_PENDING;
> > + kvm_debug("Set pending: 0x%x\n", vlr.state);
> > + }
> > +
> > + if (!vgic_irq_is_edge(vcpu, irq))
> > + vlr.state |= LR_EOI_INT;
> > +
> > + vgic_set_lr(vcpu, lr_nr, vlr);
> > ++ vgic_sync_lr_elrsr(vcpu, lr_nr, vlr);
> > + }
> > +
> > /*
> > * Queue an interrupt to a CPU virtual interface. Return true on success,
> > * or false if it wasn't possible to queue it.
> > @@@ -982,9 -1141,7 +1148,7 @@@ bool vgic_queue_irq(struct kvm_vcpu *vc
> > if (vlr.source == sgi_source_id) {
> > kvm_debug("LR%d piggyback for IRQ%d\n", lr, vlr.irq);
> > BUG_ON(!test_bit(lr, vgic_cpu->lr_used));
> > - vlr.state |= LR_STATE_PENDING;
> > - vgic_set_lr(vcpu, lr, vlr);
> > - vgic_sync_lr_elrsr(vcpu, lr, vlr);
> > + vgic_queue_irq_to_lr(vcpu, irq, lr, vlr);
> > return true;
> > }
> > }
> > @@@ -1001,12 -1158,8 +1165,8 @@@
> >
> > vlr.irq = irq;
> > vlr.source = sgi_source_id;
> > - vlr.state = LR_STATE_PENDING;
> > - if (!vgic_irq_is_edge(vcpu, irq))
> > - vlr.state |= LR_EOI_INT;
> > -
> > - vgic_set_lr(vcpu, lr, vlr);
> > - vgic_sync_lr_elrsr(vcpu, lr, vlr);
> > + vlr.state = 0;
> > + vgic_queue_irq_to_lr(vcpu, irq, lr, vlr);
> >
> > return true;
> > }
> >
> >
> > Christoffer, this is the same logic as Stephen's resolution, but
> > can you confirm that it makes sense "semantically" as well?
>
> This looks like a sensible resolution to me. I've given it a spin, and
> it seems to behave as expected.
>
Yes, this is semantically slightly nicer in fact.
Thanks,
-Christoffer
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-next" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
