From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Marcelo Tosatti <mtosatti@redhat.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] report IRQ injection status to userspace.
Date: Wed, 28 Jan 2009 17:09:26 -0200
Message-ID: <20090128190926.GA4669@amt.cnet>
References: <20090121113227.GH27675@redhat.com> <20090121123428.GI27675@redhat.com> <20090126161038.GB3894@amt.cnet> <20090127132739.GG15778@redhat.com> <20090127154107.GC5806@amt.cnet> <20090128163735.GI15778@redhat.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Cc: Avi Kivity <avi@redhat.com>, kvm@vger.kernel.org
To: Gleb Natapov <gleb@redhat.com>
Return-path: <kvm-owner@vger.kernel.org>
Received: from mx2.redhat.com ([66.187.237.31]:41793 "EHLO mx2.redhat.com"
	rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP
	id S1751334AbZA1TKE (ORCPT <rfc822;kvm@vger.kernel.org>);
	Wed, 28 Jan 2009 14:10:04 -0500
Received: from int-mx2.corp.redhat.com (int-mx2.corp.redhat.com [172.16.27.26])
	by mx2.redhat.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id n0SJA3lE021284
	for <kvm@vger.kernel.org>; Wed, 28 Jan 2009 14:10:03 -0500
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20090128163735.GI15778@redhat.com>
Sender: kvm-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-ID: <kvm.vger.kernel.org>

On Wed, Jan 28, 2009 at 06:37:36PM +0200, Gleb Natapov wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 27, 2009 at 01:41:07PM -0200, Marcelo Tosatti wrote:
> > On Tue, Jan 27, 2009 at 03:27:39PM +0200, Gleb Natapov wrote:
> > > > -1 here ?
> > > > 
> > > I think 1 is better here. For level=0 we always want to report that interrupt
> > > was injected and for the case of edge triggered interrupt and level=1
> > > ioapic_service() will always be called. BTW it seems that expression
> > > old_irr != ioapic->irr in:
> > >             if ((!entry.fields.trig_mode && old_irr != ioapic->irr)
> > >                 || !entry.fields.remote_irr)
> > >                 ret = ioapic_service(ioapic, irq);
> > > Will always be true since for edge triggered interrupt irr is always
> > > cleared by ioapic_service(). Am I right?
> > 
> > Right, I was thinking about
> > 
> > 	if (irq >= 0 && irq < IOAPIC_NUM_PINS) {
> > 
> > Should return MASKED if irq is outside the acceptable range?
> > 
> Is this ever can be false? Should we BUG() if irq is out of range?

If qemu-kvm passes it ouf range IRQ yes. Its just a nitpicking, ignore
it.

> > That assumes guests won't mask the interrupt temporarily in the irqchip,
> > hope that is OK (as Avi noted earlier guests use CPU to mask irqs
> > temporarily, most of the time).
> And if a guest masks interrupts it can't complain that some are lost. I
> haven't seen Windows masking RTC irq.

Makes sense.