From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Ian Campbell Subject: Re: [Draft E] Xen on ARM vITS Handling Date: Wed, 10 Jun 2015 10:03:25 +0100 Message-ID: <1433927005.30003.8.camel@citrix.com> References: <1433864565.7108.565.camel@citrix.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: <1433864565.7108.565.camel@citrix.com> List-Unsubscribe: , List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: xen-devel-bounces@lists.xen.org Errors-To: xen-devel-bounces@lists.xen.org To: xen-devel Cc: manish.jaggi@caviumnetworks.com, Julien Grall , Stefano Stabellini , Vijay Kilari List-Id: xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org On Tue, 2015-06-09 at 16:42 +0100, Ian Campbell wrote: > Draft E follows. Also at: > http://xenbits.xen.org/people/ianc/vits/draftE.{pdf,html} > > The major change here arises from the realisation that it is not > possible to associate a vPLI with a single pLPI, which has ramifications > for the management of enabling/disabling pLPIs and the handling of > spurious pLPIs which we are now expecting to see as a consequence. On > the plus side this ended up taking care of UI1 and there are now no > major stumbling blocks that I can see. One thing which I realised is not covered is where the `struct pending_irq` for vLPIs comes from. I propose to make that a dynamically allocated array (allocated on domain construction) in `struct domain` alongside the similar array for SPIs This avoids the need to manage allocations and tree insertions etc during command processing. I won't send a draft F for just that though. Ian.