From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: David Vrabel Subject: Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH v1 04/21] x86/xen/MSI: Eliminate arch_msix_mask_irq() and arch_msi_mask_irq() Date: Thu, 11 Sep 2014 14:08:34 +0100 Message-ID: <54119ED2.3070802@citrix.com> References: <1409911806-10519-1-git-send-email-wangyijing@huawei.com> <1409911806-10519-5-git-send-email-wangyijing@huawei.com> <541045BE.9050804@citrix.com> <5410F955.80609@huawei.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: <5410F955.80609-hv44wF8Li93QT0dZR+AlfA@public.gmane.org> List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: iommu-bounces-cunTk1MwBs9QetFLy7KEm3xJsTq8ys+cHZ5vskTnxNA@public.gmane.org Errors-To: iommu-bounces-cunTk1MwBs9QetFLy7KEm3xJsTq8ys+cHZ5vskTnxNA@public.gmane.org To: Yijing Wang , David Vrabel , Bjorn Helgaas Cc: linux-mips-6z/3iImG2C8G8FEW9MqTrA@public.gmane.org, linux-ia64-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org, linux-pci-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org, Xinwei Hu , sparclinux-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org, linux-arch-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org, linux-s390-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org, Russell King , x86-DgEjT+Ai2ygdnm+yROfE0A@public.gmane.org, Sebastian Ott , Benjamin Herrenschmidt , xen-devel-GuqFBffKawtpuQazS67q72D2FQJk+8+b@public.gmane.org, arnab.basu-KZfg59tc24xl57MIdRCFDg@public.gmane.org, Arnd Bergmann , Chris Metcalf , Thomas Gleixner , linux-arm-kernel-IAPFreCvJWM7uuMidbF8XUB+6BGkLq7r@public.gmane.org, Tony Luck , Ralf Baechle , iommu-cunTk1MwBs9QetFLy7KEm3xJsTq8ys+cHZ5vskTnxNA@public.gmane.org, Wuyun , linuxppc-dev-uLR06cmDAlY/bJ5BZ2RsiQ@public.gmane.org, "David S. Miller" List-Id: linux-arch.vger.kernel.org On 11/09/14 02:22, Yijing Wang wrote: > On 2014/9/10 20:36, David Vrabel wrote: >> On 05/09/14 11:09, Yijing Wang wrote: >>> Commit 0e4ccb150 added two __weak arch functions arch_msix_mask_irq() >>> and arch_msi_mask_irq() to fix a bug found when running xen in x86. >>> Introduced these two funcntions make MSI code complex. And mask/unmask >>> is the irq actions related to interrupt controller, should not use >>> weak arch functions to override mask/unmask interfaces. This patch >>> reverted commit 0e4ccb150 and export struct irq_chip msi_chip, modify >>> msi_chip->irq_mask/irq_unmask() in xen init functions to fix this >>> bug for simplicity. Also this is preparation for using struct >>> msi_chip instead of weak arch MSI functions in all platforms. >> >> Acked-by: David Vrabel >> >> But I wonder if it would be better the Xen subsystem to provide its own >> struct irq_chip instead of adjusting the fields in the generic x86 one. > > Thanks! Currently, Xen and the bare x86 system only have the different irq_chip->irq_mask/irq_unmask. > So I chose to override the two ops of bare x86 irq_chip in xen. Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk has been tested it > ok in his platform, so I think we could use its own irq_chip for xen later if the difference become large. This sounds reasonable. David From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from smtp02.citrix.com ([66.165.176.63]:33179 "EHLO SMTP02.CITRIX.COM" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1756645AbaIKNJ4 (ORCPT ); Thu, 11 Sep 2014 09:09:56 -0400 Message-ID: <54119ED2.3070802@citrix.com> Date: Thu, 11 Sep 2014 14:08:34 +0100 From: David Vrabel MIME-Version: 1.0 Subject: Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH v1 04/21] x86/xen/MSI: Eliminate arch_msix_mask_irq() and arch_msi_mask_irq() References: <1409911806-10519-1-git-send-email-wangyijing@huawei.com> <1409911806-10519-5-git-send-email-wangyijing@huawei.com> <541045BE.9050804@citrix.com> <5410F955.80609@huawei.com> In-Reply-To: <5410F955.80609@huawei.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-arch-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: To: Yijing Wang , David Vrabel , Bjorn Helgaas Cc: linux-mips@linux-mips.org, linux-ia64@vger.kernel.org, linux-pci@vger.kernel.org, Xinwei Hu , sparclinux@vger.kernel.org, linux-arch@vger.kernel.org, linux-s390@vger.kernel.org, Russell King , Joerg Roedel , x86@kernel.org, Sebastian Ott , Benjamin Herrenschmidt , xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org, arnab.basu@freescale.com, Arnd Bergmann , Chris Metcalf , Thomas Gleixner , linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org, Bharat.Bhushan@freescale.com, Tony Luck , Ralf Baechle , iommu@lists.linux-foundation.org, Wuyun , linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org, "David S. Miller" Message-ID: <20140911130834.uHk0SDHbKvpfH0yDjq1LA_T1GqxCPscV_hnDTl6di24@z> On 11/09/14 02:22, Yijing Wang wrote: > On 2014/9/10 20:36, David Vrabel wrote: >> On 05/09/14 11:09, Yijing Wang wrote: >>> Commit 0e4ccb150 added two __weak arch functions arch_msix_mask_irq() >>> and arch_msi_mask_irq() to fix a bug found when running xen in x86. >>> Introduced these two funcntions make MSI code complex. And mask/unmask >>> is the irq actions related to interrupt controller, should not use >>> weak arch functions to override mask/unmask interfaces. This patch >>> reverted commit 0e4ccb150 and export struct irq_chip msi_chip, modify >>> msi_chip->irq_mask/irq_unmask() in xen init functions to fix this >>> bug for simplicity. Also this is preparation for using struct >>> msi_chip instead of weak arch MSI functions in all platforms. >> >> Acked-by: David Vrabel >> >> But I wonder if it would be better the Xen subsystem to provide its own >> struct irq_chip instead of adjusting the fields in the generic x86 one. > > Thanks! Currently, Xen and the bare x86 system only have the different irq_chip->irq_mask/irq_unmask. > So I chose to override the two ops of bare x86 irq_chip in xen. Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk has been tested it > ok in his platform, so I think we could use its own irq_chip for xen later if the difference become large. This sounds reasonable. David From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: David Vrabel Date: Thu, 11 Sep 2014 13:08:34 +0000 Subject: Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH v1 04/21] x86/xen/MSI: Eliminate arch_msix_mask_irq() and arch_msi_mask_irq() Message-Id: <54119ED2.3070802@citrix.com> List-Id: References: <1409911806-10519-1-git-send-email-wangyijing@huawei.com> <1409911806-10519-5-git-send-email-wangyijing@huawei.com> <541045BE.9050804@citrix.com> <5410F955.80609@huawei.com> In-Reply-To: <5410F955.80609@huawei.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: Yijing Wang , David Vrabel , Bjorn Helgaas Cc: linux-mips@linux-mips.org, linux-ia64@vger.kernel.org, linux-pci@vger.kernel.org, Xinwei Hu , sparclinux@vger.kernel.org, linux-arch@vger.kernel.org, linux-s390@vger.kernel.org, Russell King , Joerg Roedel , x86@kernel.org, Sebastian Ott , Benjamin Herrenschmidt , xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org, arnab.basu@freescale.com, Arnd Bergmann , Chris Metcalf , Thomas Gleixner , linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org, Bharat.Bhushan@freescale.com, Tony Luck , Ralf Baechle , iommu@lists.linux-foundation.org, Wuyun , linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org, "David S. Miller" On 11/09/14 02:22, Yijing Wang wrote: > On 2014/9/10 20:36, David Vrabel wrote: >> On 05/09/14 11:09, Yijing Wang wrote: >>> Commit 0e4ccb150 added two __weak arch functions arch_msix_mask_irq() >>> and arch_msi_mask_irq() to fix a bug found when running xen in x86. >>> Introduced these two funcntions make MSI code complex. And mask/unmask >>> is the irq actions related to interrupt controller, should not use >>> weak arch functions to override mask/unmask interfaces. This patch >>> reverted commit 0e4ccb150 and export struct irq_chip msi_chip, modify >>> msi_chip->irq_mask/irq_unmask() in xen init functions to fix this >>> bug for simplicity. Also this is preparation for using struct >>> msi_chip instead of weak arch MSI functions in all platforms. >> >> Acked-by: David Vrabel >> >> But I wonder if it would be better the Xen subsystem to provide its own >> struct irq_chip instead of adjusting the fields in the generic x86 one. > > Thanks! Currently, Xen and the bare x86 system only have the different irq_chip->irq_mask/irq_unmask. > So I chose to override the two ops of bare x86 irq_chip in xen. Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk has been tested it > ok in his platform, so I think we could use its own irq_chip for xen later if the difference become large. This sounds reasonable. David From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list linux-mips); Thu, 11 Sep 2014 15:10:05 +0200 (CEST) Received: from smtp02.citrix.com ([66.165.176.63]:55969 "EHLO SMTP02.CITRIX.COM" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by eddie.linux-mips.org with ESMTP id S27008725AbaIKNKCkeEf4 (ORCPT ); Thu, 11 Sep 2014 15:10:02 +0200 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.04,505,1406592000"; d="scan'208";a="171354780" Message-ID: <54119ED2.3070802@citrix.com> Date: Thu, 11 Sep 2014 14:08:34 +0100 From: David Vrabel User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:24.0) Gecko/20100101 Icedove/24.5.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Yijing Wang , David Vrabel , Bjorn Helgaas CC: , , , Xinwei Hu , , , , Russell King , "Joerg Roedel" , , Sebastian Ott , Benjamin Herrenschmidt , , , Arnd Bergmann , Chris Metcalf , Thomas Gleixner , , , "Tony Luck" , Ralf Baechle , , Wuyun , , "David S. Miller" Subject: Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH v1 04/21] x86/xen/MSI: Eliminate arch_msix_mask_irq() and arch_msi_mask_irq() References: <1409911806-10519-1-git-send-email-wangyijing@huawei.com> <1409911806-10519-5-git-send-email-wangyijing@huawei.com> <541045BE.9050804@citrix.com> <5410F955.80609@huawei.com> In-Reply-To: <5410F955.80609@huawei.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-DLP: MIA1 Return-Path: X-Envelope-To: <"|/home/ecartis/ecartis -s linux-mips"> (uid 0) X-Orcpt: rfc822;linux-mips@linux-mips.org Original-Recipient: rfc822;linux-mips@linux-mips.org X-archive-position: 42521 X-ecartis-version: Ecartis v1.0.0 Sender: linux-mips-bounce@linux-mips.org Errors-to: linux-mips-bounce@linux-mips.org X-original-sender: david.vrabel@citrix.com Precedence: bulk List-help: List-unsubscribe: List-software: Ecartis version 1.0.0 List-Id: linux-mips X-List-ID: linux-mips List-subscribe: List-owner: List-post: List-archive: X-list: linux-mips On 11/09/14 02:22, Yijing Wang wrote: > On 2014/9/10 20:36, David Vrabel wrote: >> On 05/09/14 11:09, Yijing Wang wrote: >>> Commit 0e4ccb150 added two __weak arch functions arch_msix_mask_irq() >>> and arch_msi_mask_irq() to fix a bug found when running xen in x86. >>> Introduced these two funcntions make MSI code complex. And mask/unmask >>> is the irq actions related to interrupt controller, should not use >>> weak arch functions to override mask/unmask interfaces. This patch >>> reverted commit 0e4ccb150 and export struct irq_chip msi_chip, modify >>> msi_chip->irq_mask/irq_unmask() in xen init functions to fix this >>> bug for simplicity. Also this is preparation for using struct >>> msi_chip instead of weak arch MSI functions in all platforms. >> >> Acked-by: David Vrabel >> >> But I wonder if it would be better the Xen subsystem to provide its own >> struct irq_chip instead of adjusting the fields in the generic x86 one. > > Thanks! Currently, Xen and the bare x86 system only have the different irq_chip->irq_mask/irq_unmask. > So I chose to override the two ops of bare x86 irq_chip in xen. Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk has been tested it > ok in his platform, so I think we could use its own irq_chip for xen later if the difference become large. This sounds reasonable. David From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from SMTP02.CITRIX.COM (smtp02.citrix.com [66.165.176.63]) (using TLSv1 with cipher RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by lists.ozlabs.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id C86CE1A0044 for ; Thu, 11 Sep 2014 23:10:00 +1000 (EST) Message-ID: <54119ED2.3070802@citrix.com> Date: Thu, 11 Sep 2014 14:08:34 +0100 From: David Vrabel MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Yijing Wang , David Vrabel , Bjorn Helgaas Subject: Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH v1 04/21] x86/xen/MSI: Eliminate arch_msix_mask_irq() and arch_msi_mask_irq() References: <1409911806-10519-1-git-send-email-wangyijing@huawei.com> <1409911806-10519-5-git-send-email-wangyijing@huawei.com> <541045BE.9050804@citrix.com> <5410F955.80609@huawei.com> In-Reply-To: <5410F955.80609@huawei.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1" Cc: linux-mips@linux-mips.org, linux-ia64@vger.kernel.org, linux-pci@vger.kernel.org, Xinwei Hu , sparclinux@vger.kernel.org, linux-arch@vger.kernel.org, linux-s390@vger.kernel.org, Russell King , Joerg Roedel , x86@kernel.org, Sebastian Ott , xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org, arnab.basu@freescale.com, Arnd Bergmann , Chris Metcalf , Thomas Gleixner , linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org, Bharat.Bhushan@freescale.com, Tony Luck , Ralf Baechle , iommu@lists.linux-foundation.org, Wuyun , linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org, "David S. Miller" List-Id: Linux on PowerPC Developers Mail List List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , On 11/09/14 02:22, Yijing Wang wrote: > On 2014/9/10 20:36, David Vrabel wrote: >> On 05/09/14 11:09, Yijing Wang wrote: >>> Commit 0e4ccb150 added two __weak arch functions arch_msix_mask_irq() >>> and arch_msi_mask_irq() to fix a bug found when running xen in x86. >>> Introduced these two funcntions make MSI code complex. And mask/unmask >>> is the irq actions related to interrupt controller, should not use >>> weak arch functions to override mask/unmask interfaces. This patch >>> reverted commit 0e4ccb150 and export struct irq_chip msi_chip, modify >>> msi_chip->irq_mask/irq_unmask() in xen init functions to fix this >>> bug for simplicity. Also this is preparation for using struct >>> msi_chip instead of weak arch MSI functions in all platforms. >> >> Acked-by: David Vrabel >> >> But I wonder if it would be better the Xen subsystem to provide its own >> struct irq_chip instead of adjusting the fields in the generic x86 one. > > Thanks! Currently, Xen and the bare x86 system only have the different irq_chip->irq_mask/irq_unmask. > So I chose to override the two ops of bare x86 irq_chip in xen. Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk has been tested it > ok in his platform, so I think we could use its own irq_chip for xen later if the difference become large. This sounds reasonable. David From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: David Vrabel Date: Thu, 11 Sep 2014 13:08:34 +0000 Subject: Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH v1 04/21] x86/xen/MSI: Eliminate arch_msix_mask_irq() and arch_msi_mask_irq() Message-Id: <54119ED2.3070802@citrix.com> List-Id: References: <1409911806-10519-1-git-send-email-wangyijing@huawei.com> <1409911806-10519-5-git-send-email-wangyijing@huawei.com> <541045BE.9050804@citrix.com> <5410F955.80609@huawei.com> In-Reply-To: <5410F955.80609-hv44wF8Li93QT0dZR+AlfA@public.gmane.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: Yijing Wang , David Vrabel , Bjorn Helgaas Cc: linux-mips-6z/3iImG2C8G8FEW9MqTrA@public.gmane.org, linux-ia64-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org, linux-pci-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org, Xinwei Hu , sparclinux-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org, linux-arch-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org, linux-s390-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org, Russell King , x86-DgEjT+Ai2ygdnm+yROfE0A@public.gmane.org, Sebastian Ott , Benjamin Herrenschmidt , xen-devel-GuqFBffKawtpuQazS67q72D2FQJk+8+b@public.gmane.org, arnab.basu-KZfg59tc24xl57MIdRCFDg@public.gmane.org, Arnd Bergmann , Chris Metcalf , Thomas Gleixner , linux-arm-kernel-IAPFreCvJWM7uuMidbF8XUB+6BGkLq7r@public.gmane.org, Tony Luck , Ralf Baechle , iommu-cunTk1MwBs9QetFLy7KEm3xJsTq8ys+cHZ5vskTnxNA@public.gmane.org, Wuyun , linuxppc-dev-uLR06cmDAlY/bJ5BZ2RsiQ@public.gmane.org, "David S. Miller" On 11/09/14 02:22, Yijing Wang wrote: > On 2014/9/10 20:36, David Vrabel wrote: >> On 05/09/14 11:09, Yijing Wang wrote: >>> Commit 0e4ccb150 added two __weak arch functions arch_msix_mask_irq() >>> and arch_msi_mask_irq() to fix a bug found when running xen in x86. >>> Introduced these two funcntions make MSI code complex. And mask/unmask >>> is the irq actions related to interrupt controller, should not use >>> weak arch functions to override mask/unmask interfaces. This patch >>> reverted commit 0e4ccb150 and export struct irq_chip msi_chip, modify >>> msi_chip->irq_mask/irq_unmask() in xen init functions to fix this >>> bug for simplicity. Also this is preparation for using struct >>> msi_chip instead of weak arch MSI functions in all platforms. >> >> Acked-by: David Vrabel >> >> But I wonder if it would be better the Xen subsystem to provide its own >> struct irq_chip instead of adjusting the fields in the generic x86 one. > > Thanks! Currently, Xen and the bare x86 system only have the different irq_chip->irq_mask/irq_unmask. > So I chose to override the two ops of bare x86 irq_chip in xen. Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk has been tested it > ok in his platform, so I think we could use its own irq_chip for xen later if the difference become large. This sounds reasonable. David From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: david.vrabel@citrix.com (David Vrabel) Date: Thu, 11 Sep 2014 14:08:34 +0100 Subject: [Xen-devel] [PATCH v1 04/21] x86/xen/MSI: Eliminate arch_msix_mask_irq() and arch_msi_mask_irq() In-Reply-To: <5410F955.80609@huawei.com> References: <1409911806-10519-1-git-send-email-wangyijing@huawei.com> <1409911806-10519-5-git-send-email-wangyijing@huawei.com> <541045BE.9050804@citrix.com> <5410F955.80609@huawei.com> Message-ID: <54119ED2.3070802@citrix.com> To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org On 11/09/14 02:22, Yijing Wang wrote: > On 2014/9/10 20:36, David Vrabel wrote: >> On 05/09/14 11:09, Yijing Wang wrote: >>> Commit 0e4ccb150 added two __weak arch functions arch_msix_mask_irq() >>> and arch_msi_mask_irq() to fix a bug found when running xen in x86. >>> Introduced these two funcntions make MSI code complex. And mask/unmask >>> is the irq actions related to interrupt controller, should not use >>> weak arch functions to override mask/unmask interfaces. This patch >>> reverted commit 0e4ccb150 and export struct irq_chip msi_chip, modify >>> msi_chip->irq_mask/irq_unmask() in xen init functions to fix this >>> bug for simplicity. Also this is preparation for using struct >>> msi_chip instead of weak arch MSI functions in all platforms. >> >> Acked-by: David Vrabel >> >> But I wonder if it would be better the Xen subsystem to provide its own >> struct irq_chip instead of adjusting the fields in the generic x86 one. > > Thanks! Currently, Xen and the bare x86 system only have the different irq_chip->irq_mask/irq_unmask. > So I chose to override the two ops of bare x86 irq_chip in xen. Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk has been tested it > ok in his platform, so I think we could use its own irq_chip for xen later if the difference become large. This sounds reasonable. David