From: christoffer.dall@linaro.org (Christoffer Dall)
To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
Subject: [RFC PATCH 2/6] arm/arm64: KVM: Rename irq_active to irq_queued
Date: Mon, 30 Jun 2014 14:20:53 -0700 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20140630212053.GA20104@cbox> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <40b2b2cd240d39950a3aa98c53c36fad@www.loen.fr>
On Sun, Jun 22, 2014 at 12:25:02PM +0100, Marc Zyngier wrote:
> On 2014-06-14 21:51, Christoffer Dall wrote:
> >We have a special bitmap on the distributor struct to keep track
> >of when
> >level-triggered interrupts are queued on the list registers. This
> >was
> >named irq_active, which is confusing, because the active state of an
> >interrupt as per the GIC spec is a different thing, not specifically
> >related to edge-triggered/level-triggered configurations but rather
> >indicates an interrupt which has been ack'ed but not yet eoi'ed.
> >
> >Rename the bitmap and the corresponding accessor functions to
> >irq_queued
> >to clarify what this is actually used for.
>
> While I agree that irq_active is confusing, I would tend to object
> to irq_queued for similar reasons. Edge interrupts get queued as
> well.
yeah, but this is never checked for edge-triggered IRQs so I don't find
that part confusing. I find the queued word suitable, because we set in
in the _queue function and unset it in the unqueue function.
>
> What this bit does is to allow or forbid resampling of a level
> interrupt.
>
> How about irq_resample instead? That would mandate a small refactor
> of the code (a bit set to one would allow resampling, which is the
> opposite of the current logic), but would look better, I believe.
>
> What do you think?
>
hmm, maybe. Feel like illustrating what you mean exactly in form of a
patch?
-Christoffer
WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Christoffer Dall <christoffer.dall@linaro.org>
To: Marc Zyngier <maz@misterjones.org>
Cc: kvmarm@lists.cs.columbia.edu,
linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org,
Andre Przywara <andre.przywara@arm.com>,
kvm@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 2/6] arm/arm64: KVM: Rename irq_active to irq_queued
Date: Mon, 30 Jun 2014 14:20:53 -0700 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20140630212053.GA20104@cbox> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <40b2b2cd240d39950a3aa98c53c36fad@www.loen.fr>
On Sun, Jun 22, 2014 at 12:25:02PM +0100, Marc Zyngier wrote:
> On 2014-06-14 21:51, Christoffer Dall wrote:
> >We have a special bitmap on the distributor struct to keep track
> >of when
> >level-triggered interrupts are queued on the list registers. This
> >was
> >named irq_active, which is confusing, because the active state of an
> >interrupt as per the GIC spec is a different thing, not specifically
> >related to edge-triggered/level-triggered configurations but rather
> >indicates an interrupt which has been ack'ed but not yet eoi'ed.
> >
> >Rename the bitmap and the corresponding accessor functions to
> >irq_queued
> >to clarify what this is actually used for.
>
> While I agree that irq_active is confusing, I would tend to object
> to irq_queued for similar reasons. Edge interrupts get queued as
> well.
yeah, but this is never checked for edge-triggered IRQs so I don't find
that part confusing. I find the queued word suitable, because we set in
in the _queue function and unset it in the unqueue function.
>
> What this bit does is to allow or forbid resampling of a level
> interrupt.
>
> How about irq_resample instead? That would mandate a small refactor
> of the code (a bit set to one would allow resampling, which is the
> opposite of the current logic), but would look better, I believe.
>
> What do you think?
>
hmm, maybe. Feel like illustrating what you mean exactly in form of a
patch?
-Christoffer
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2014-06-30 21:20 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 30+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2014-06-14 20:51 [RFC PATCH 0/6] arm/arm64: KVM: Various VGIC cleanups and improvements Christoffer Dall
2014-06-14 20:51 ` Christoffer Dall
2014-06-14 20:51 ` [RFC PATCH 1/6] arm/arm64: KVM: Rename irq_state to irq_pending Christoffer Dall
2014-06-14 20:51 ` Christoffer Dall
2014-06-18 14:30 ` Eric Auger
2014-06-18 14:30 ` Eric Auger
2014-06-22 11:20 ` Marc Zyngier
2014-06-22 11:20 ` Marc Zyngier
2014-06-14 20:51 ` [RFC PATCH 2/6] arm/arm64: KVM: Rename irq_active to irq_queued Christoffer Dall
2014-06-14 20:51 ` Christoffer Dall
2014-06-22 11:25 ` Marc Zyngier
2014-06-22 11:25 ` Marc Zyngier
2014-06-30 21:20 ` Christoffer Dall [this message]
2014-06-30 21:20 ` Christoffer Dall
2014-06-14 20:51 ` [RFC PATCH 3/6] arm/arm64: KVM: vgic: Clear queued flags on unqueue Christoffer Dall
2014-06-14 20:51 ` Christoffer Dall
2014-06-22 11:27 ` Marc Zyngier
2014-06-22 11:27 ` Marc Zyngier
2014-06-14 20:51 ` [RFC PATCH 4/6] arm/arm64: KVM: vgic: Improve handling of GICD_I{CS}PENDRn Christoffer Dall
2014-06-14 20:51 ` Christoffer Dall
2014-06-18 14:25 ` Eric Auger
2014-06-18 14:25 ` Eric Auger
2014-07-07 14:39 ` Christoffer Dall
2014-07-07 14:39 ` Christoffer Dall
2014-06-14 20:51 ` [RFC PATCH 5/6] arm/arm64: KVM: vgic: Fix SGI writes to GICD_I{CS}PENDR0 Christoffer Dall
2014-06-14 20:51 ` Christoffer Dall
2014-06-14 20:51 ` [RFC PATCH 6/6] arm/arm64: KVM: vgic: Clarify and correct vgic documentation Christoffer Dall
2014-06-14 20:51 ` Christoffer Dall
2014-06-18 14:47 ` Eric Auger
2014-06-18 14:47 ` Eric Auger
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20140630212053.GA20104@cbox \
--to=christoffer.dall@linaro.org \
--cc=linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.