Re: [RFC KERNEL PATCH v6 3/3] xen/privcmd: Add new syscall to get gsi from irq

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



On 2024/5/10 19:27, Jürgen Groß wrote:
> 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?
Yes, I think so.
> In that case I agree to add IRQT_GSI.
Thank you!
> 
> 
> Juergen

-- 
Best regards,
Jiqian Chen.




[Index of Archives]     [DMA Engine]     [Linux Coverity]     [Linux USB]     [Video for Linux]     [Linux Audio Users]     [Yosemite News]     [Linux Kernel]     [Linux SCSI]     [Greybus]

  Powered by Linux