On Thu, 20 Dec 2018 12:49:56 +0100 Michael Mueller <mimu@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > On 20.12.18 12:06, Cornelia Huck wrote: > > On Wed, 19 Dec 2018 20:17:46 +0100 > > Michael Mueller <mimu@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > >> Use a single function with parameter irq_flags to differentiate > >> between cases. > >> > >> New irq flag: > >> IRQ_FLAG_LOCAL: include vcpu local interruptions pending > >> IRQ_FLAG_FLOATING: include vcpu floating interruptions pending > >> IRQ_FLAG_GISA: include GISA interruptions pending in IPM > > > > I presume that means that irqs may be in more than one set? Or are gisa > > irqs not considered floating irqs, because they use a different > > mechanism? > > Currently, the interruptions managed in GISA are floating only. But > that might change in future. I don't think GISA can be used for non-floating interrupts. Regards, Halil > The idea is not to subsume IRQ_FLAG_GISA > in IRQ_FLAG_FLOATING but to be able to address the right set of > procedures to determine the irq pending set for a given subset of irq > types that have different implementations. > > There might be a better name for IRQ_FLAG_FLOATING then? > [..]
