From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Avi Kivity Subject: Re: [Android-virt] [PATCH v5 10/13] ARM: KVM: Guest wait-for-interrupts (WFI) support Date: Tue, 13 Dec 2011 11:41:19 +0200 Message-ID: <4EE71DBF.5010903@redhat.com> References: <20111211102403.21693.6887.stgit@localhost> <20111211102522.21693.14911.stgit@localhost> <4EE60BCE.6010405@redhat.com> <4EE63D84.1010209@redhat.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: kvm@vger.kernel.org, Marc.Zyngier@arm.com, android-virt@lists.cs.columbia.edu, tech@virtualopensystems.com To: Christoffer Dall Return-path: Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([209.132.183.28]:59663 "EHLO mx1.redhat.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752826Ab1LMJli (ORCPT ); Tue, 13 Dec 2011 04:41:38 -0500 In-Reply-To: Sender: kvm-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On 12/12/2011 09:21 PM, Christoffer Dall wrote: > >> > >> well, if we block, but receive a signal that we want to go back into > >> userspace for, and then come back but the guest should still be > >> waiting, then I want that flag set, and I think it's the most logical > >> control flow. Am I missing something completely? > > > > That's just not the flow that the other archs use, I don't think that it > > really matters. kvm_vcpu_block() checks for and wakes up on signals, so > > it's okay to call it from here directly. > > > yes, but I still have to perform the check again in the main run > function if it woke up for anything else than a guest interrupt, so > why call it twice... You're right and in fact that's how x86 works too. I misremembered. -- error compiling committee.c: too many arguments to function