From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Julien Grall Subject: Re: [PATCH] xen/arm: introduce platform_need_explicit_eoi Date: Mon, 30 Jun 2014 11:01:59 +0100 Message-ID: <53B13597.70401@linaro.org> References: <1403271316-21635-1-git-send-email-stefano.stabellini@eu.citrix.com> <53A440FD.6070303@linaro.org> <53A4496A.4080009@linaro.org> <53A46863.2040701@linaro.org> <53A59DDC.50005@linaro.org> <53A5ABD8.8080104@linaro.org> <1403884302.3169.85.camel@kazak.uk.xensource.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: <1403884302.3169.85.camel@kazak.uk.xensource.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: Ian Campbell , Stefano Stabellini Cc: xen-devel@lists.xensource.com, apatel@apm.com, psawargaonkar@apm.com List-Id: xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org On 06/27/2014 04:51 PM, Ian Campbell wrote: > On Mon, 2014-06-23 at 11:43 +0100, Stefano Stabellini wrote: >> I thought about this concurrency problem and I think I managed to >> solve it correctly. The solution I used was introducing a new flag >> called "GIC_IRQ_GUEST_MIGRATING". See: >> >> 1402504032-13267-4-git-send-email-stefano.stabellini@eu.citrix.com > > So, I'm not sure whether I should apply this patch now or wait for that > series to go in first. What should I do? IIRC, I've asked Stefano to rewrote a bit the following paragraph. " > No need to find the pcpu that needs to write to GICC_DIR, because after > "physical irq follow virtual irq" we always inject the virtual irq on > the vcpu that is running on the pcpu that received the interrupt. " The "physical irq follow virtual irq" is part of the migration series but this is not the reason that make GICC_DIR working. This is GIC specific (even though, I can't find a clearly define behavior in the specification). Regards, -- Julien Grall