Re: linux-next: manual merge of the kvm-arm tree with Linus' tree

Re: linux-next: manual merge of the kvm-arm tree with Linus' tree

[Christoffer Dall]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1601 bytes --]

Hi Stephen,

On Wed, Mar 18, 2015 at 02:41:11PM +1100, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
> Hi all,
> 
> Today's linux-next merge of the kvm-arm tree got a conflict in
> virt/kvm/arm/vgic.c between commit ae705930fca6 ("arm/arm64: KVM: Keep
> elrsr/aisr in sync with software model") from Linus' tree and commit
> 71760950bf3d ("arm/arm64: KVM: add a common vgic_queue_irq_to_lr fn")
> from the kvm-arm tree.
> 
> I fixed it up (I think - see below) and can carry the fix as necessary
> (no action is required).
> 
> -- 
> Cheers,
> Stephen Rothwell                    sfr@canb.auug.org.au
> 
> diff --cc virt/kvm/arm/vgic.c
> index c9f60f524588,ffd937ca5141..000000000000
> --- a/virt/kvm/arm/vgic.c
> +++ b/virt/kvm/arm/vgic.c
> @@@ -982,9 -1092,7 +1098,8 @@@ bool vgic_queue_irq(struct kvm_vcpu *vc
>   		if (vlr.source == sgi_source_id) {
>   			kvm_debug("LR%d piggyback for IRQ%d\n", lr, vlr.irq);
>   			BUG_ON(!test_bit(lr, vgic_cpu->lr_used));
> - 			vlr.state |= LR_STATE_PENDING;
> - 			vgic_set_lr(vcpu, lr, vlr);
> + 			vgic_queue_irq_to_lr(vcpu, irq, lr, vlr);
>  +			vgic_sync_lr_elrsr(vcpu, lr, vlr);
>   			return true;
>   		}
>   	}
> @@@ -1001,12 -1109,8 +1116,9 @@@
>   
>   	vlr.irq = irq;
>   	vlr.source = sgi_source_id;
> - 	vlr.state = LR_STATE_PENDING;
> - 	if (!vgic_irq_is_edge(vcpu, irq))
> - 		vlr.state |= LR_EOI_INT;
> - 
> - 	vgic_set_lr(vcpu, lr, vlr);
> + 	vlr.state = 0;
> + 	vgic_queue_irq_to_lr(vcpu, irq, lr, vlr);
>  +	vgic_sync_lr_elrsr(vcpu, lr, vlr);
>   
>   	return true;
>   }


Looks great, thanks!
-Christoffer

[-- Attachment #2: Digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 473 bytes --]

Re: linux-next: manual merge of the kvm-arm tree with Linus' tree

[Paolo Bonzini]

On 18/03/2015 08:55, Christoffer Dall wrote:
> Hi Stephen,
> 
> On Wed, Mar 18, 2015 at 02:41:11PM +1100, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
>> Hi all,
>>
>> Today's linux-next merge of the kvm-arm tree got a conflict in
>> virt/kvm/arm/vgic.c between commit ae705930fca6 ("arm/arm64: KVM: Keep
>> elrsr/aisr in sync with software model") from Linus' tree and commit
>> 71760950bf3d ("arm/arm64: KVM: add a common vgic_queue_irq_to_lr fn")
>> from the kvm-arm tree.
>>
>> I fixed it up (I think - see below) and can carry the fix as necessary
>> (no action is required).
>>
>> -- 
>> Cheers,
>> Stephen Rothwell                    sfr@canb.auug.org.au
>>
>> diff --cc virt/kvm/arm/vgic.c
>> index c9f60f524588,ffd937ca5141..000000000000
>> --- a/virt/kvm/arm/vgic.c
>> +++ b/virt/kvm/arm/vgic.c
>> @@@ -982,9 -1092,7 +1098,8 @@@ bool vgic_queue_irq(struct kvm_vcpu *vc
>>   		if (vlr.source == sgi_source_id) {
>>   			kvm_debug("LR%d piggyback for IRQ%d\n", lr, vlr.irq);
>>   			BUG_ON(!test_bit(lr, vgic_cpu->lr_used));
>> - 			vlr.state |= LR_STATE_PENDING;
>> - 			vgic_set_lr(vcpu, lr, vlr);
>> + 			vgic_queue_irq_to_lr(vcpu, irq, lr, vlr);
>>  +			vgic_sync_lr_elrsr(vcpu, lr, vlr);
>>   			return true;
>>   		}
>>   	}
>> @@@ -1001,12 -1109,8 +1116,9 @@@
>>   
>>   	vlr.irq = irq;
>>   	vlr.source = sgi_source_id;
>> - 	vlr.state = LR_STATE_PENDING;
>> - 	if (!vgic_irq_is_edge(vcpu, irq))
>> - 		vlr.state |= LR_EOI_INT;
>> - 
>> - 	vgic_set_lr(vcpu, lr, vlr);
>> + 	vlr.state = 0;
>> + 	vgic_queue_irq_to_lr(vcpu, irq, lr, vlr);
>>  +	vgic_sync_lr_elrsr(vcpu, lr, vlr);
>>   
>>   	return true;
>>   }
> 
> Looks great, thanks!
> -Christoffer

Got the same conflict when pulling from the kvm-arm tree, I used
a different resolution though:

diff --cc virt/kvm/arm/vgic.c
index c9f60f524588,b70174e74868..8d550ff14700
--- a/virt/kvm/arm/vgic.c
+++ b/virt/kvm/arm/vgic.c
@@@ -955,6 -1095,25 +1101,26 @@@ static void vgic_retire_disabled_irqs(s
  	}
  }
  
+ static void vgic_queue_irq_to_lr(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu, int irq,
+ 				 int lr_nr, struct vgic_lr vlr)
+ {
+ 	if (vgic_irq_is_active(vcpu, irq)) {
+ 		vlr.state |= LR_STATE_ACTIVE;
+ 		kvm_debug("Set active, clear distributor: 0x%x\n", vlr.state);
+ 		vgic_irq_clear_active(vcpu, irq);
+ 		vgic_update_state(vcpu->kvm);
+ 	} else if (vgic_dist_irq_is_pending(vcpu, irq)) {
+ 		vlr.state |= LR_STATE_PENDING;
+ 		kvm_debug("Set pending: 0x%x\n", vlr.state);
+ 	}
+ 
+ 	if (!vgic_irq_is_edge(vcpu, irq))
+ 		vlr.state |= LR_EOI_INT;
+ 
+ 	vgic_set_lr(vcpu, lr_nr, vlr);
++	vgic_sync_lr_elrsr(vcpu, lr_nr, vlr);
+ }
+ 
  /*
   * Queue an interrupt to a CPU virtual interface. Return true on success,
   * or false if it wasn't possible to queue it.
@@@ -982,9 -1141,7 +1148,7 @@@ bool vgic_queue_irq(struct kvm_vcpu *vc
                if (vlr.source == sgi_source_id) {
                        kvm_debug("LR%d piggyback for IRQ%d\n", lr, vlr.irq);
                        BUG_ON(!test_bit(lr, vgic_cpu->lr_used));
-                       vlr.state |= LR_STATE_PENDING;
-                       vgic_set_lr(vcpu, lr, vlr);
-                       vgic_sync_lr_elrsr(vcpu, lr, vlr);
+                       vgic_queue_irq_to_lr(vcpu, irq, lr, vlr);
                        return true;
                }
        }
@@@ -1001,12 -1158,8 +1165,8 @@@
  
        vlr.irq = irq;
        vlr.source = sgi_source_id;
-       vlr.state = LR_STATE_PENDING;
-       if (!vgic_irq_is_edge(vcpu, irq))
-               vlr.state |= LR_EOI_INT;
- 
-       vgic_set_lr(vcpu, lr, vlr);
-       vgic_sync_lr_elrsr(vcpu, lr, vlr);
+       vlr.state = 0;
+       vgic_queue_irq_to_lr(vcpu, irq, lr, vlr);
  
        return true;
  }


Christoffer, this is the same logic as Stephen's resolution, but
can you confirm that it makes sense "semantically" as well?

(Stephen, you'll still get the conflicts in linux-next for a
couple of days as I finish local testing of KVM changes for 4.1).

Paolo

Re: linux-next: manual merge of the kvm-arm tree with Linus' tree

[Marc Zyngier]

On Tue, 7 Apr 2015 17:20:15 +0100
Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@redhat.com> wrote:

Hi Paolo,

> On 18/03/2015 08:55, Christoffer Dall wrote:
> > Hi Stephen,
> > 
> > On Wed, Mar 18, 2015 at 02:41:11PM +1100, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
> >> Hi all,
> >>
> >> Today's linux-next merge of the kvm-arm tree got a conflict in
> >> virt/kvm/arm/vgic.c between commit ae705930fca6 ("arm/arm64: KVM: Keep
> >> elrsr/aisr in sync with software model") from Linus' tree and commit
> >> 71760950bf3d ("arm/arm64: KVM: add a common vgic_queue_irq_to_lr fn")
> >> from the kvm-arm tree.
> >>
> >> I fixed it up (I think - see below) and can carry the fix as necessary
> >> (no action is required).
> >>
> >> -- 
> >> Cheers,
> >> Stephen Rothwell                    sfr@canb.auug.org.au
> >>
> >> diff --cc virt/kvm/arm/vgic.c
> >> index c9f60f524588,ffd937ca5141..000000000000
> >> --- a/virt/kvm/arm/vgic.c
> >> +++ b/virt/kvm/arm/vgic.c
> >> @@@ -982,9 -1092,7 +1098,8 @@@ bool vgic_queue_irq(struct kvm_vcpu *vc
> >>   		if (vlr.source == sgi_source_id) {
> >>   			kvm_debug("LR%d piggyback for IRQ%d\n", lr, vlr.irq);
> >>   			BUG_ON(!test_bit(lr, vgic_cpu->lr_used));
> >> - 			vlr.state |= LR_STATE_PENDING;
> >> - 			vgic_set_lr(vcpu, lr, vlr);
> >> + 			vgic_queue_irq_to_lr(vcpu, irq, lr, vlr);
> >>  +			vgic_sync_lr_elrsr(vcpu, lr, vlr);
> >>   			return true;
> >>   		}
> >>   	}
> >> @@@ -1001,12 -1109,8 +1116,9 @@@
> >>   
> >>   	vlr.irq = irq;
> >>   	vlr.source = sgi_source_id;
> >> - 	vlr.state = LR_STATE_PENDING;
> >> - 	if (!vgic_irq_is_edge(vcpu, irq))
> >> - 		vlr.state |= LR_EOI_INT;
> >> - 
> >> - 	vgic_set_lr(vcpu, lr, vlr);
> >> + 	vlr.state = 0;
> >> + 	vgic_queue_irq_to_lr(vcpu, irq, lr, vlr);
> >>  +	vgic_sync_lr_elrsr(vcpu, lr, vlr);
> >>   
> >>   	return true;
> >>   }
> > 
> > Looks great, thanks!
> > -Christoffer
> 
> Got the same conflict when pulling from the kvm-arm tree, I used
> a different resolution though:
> 
> diff --cc virt/kvm/arm/vgic.c
> index c9f60f524588,b70174e74868..8d550ff14700
> --- a/virt/kvm/arm/vgic.c
> +++ b/virt/kvm/arm/vgic.c
> @@@ -955,6 -1095,25 +1101,26 @@@ static void vgic_retire_disabled_irqs(s
>   	}
>   }
>   
> + static void vgic_queue_irq_to_lr(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu, int irq,
> + 				 int lr_nr, struct vgic_lr vlr)
> + {
> + 	if (vgic_irq_is_active(vcpu, irq)) {
> + 		vlr.state |= LR_STATE_ACTIVE;
> + 		kvm_debug("Set active, clear distributor: 0x%x\n", vlr.state);
> + 		vgic_irq_clear_active(vcpu, irq);
> + 		vgic_update_state(vcpu->kvm);
> + 	} else if (vgic_dist_irq_is_pending(vcpu, irq)) {
> + 		vlr.state |= LR_STATE_PENDING;
> + 		kvm_debug("Set pending: 0x%x\n", vlr.state);
> + 	}
> + 
> + 	if (!vgic_irq_is_edge(vcpu, irq))
> + 		vlr.state |= LR_EOI_INT;
> + 
> + 	vgic_set_lr(vcpu, lr_nr, vlr);
> ++	vgic_sync_lr_elrsr(vcpu, lr_nr, vlr);
> + }
> + 
>   /*
>    * Queue an interrupt to a CPU virtual interface. Return true on success,
>    * or false if it wasn't possible to queue it.
> @@@ -982,9 -1141,7 +1148,7 @@@ bool vgic_queue_irq(struct kvm_vcpu *vc
>                 if (vlr.source == sgi_source_id) {
>                         kvm_debug("LR%d piggyback for IRQ%d\n", lr, vlr.irq);
>                         BUG_ON(!test_bit(lr, vgic_cpu->lr_used));
> -                       vlr.state |= LR_STATE_PENDING;
> -                       vgic_set_lr(vcpu, lr, vlr);
> -                       vgic_sync_lr_elrsr(vcpu, lr, vlr);
> +                       vgic_queue_irq_to_lr(vcpu, irq, lr, vlr);
>                         return true;
>                 }
>         }
> @@@ -1001,12 -1158,8 +1165,8 @@@
>   
>         vlr.irq = irq;
>         vlr.source = sgi_source_id;
> -       vlr.state = LR_STATE_PENDING;
> -       if (!vgic_irq_is_edge(vcpu, irq))
> -               vlr.state |= LR_EOI_INT;
> - 
> -       vgic_set_lr(vcpu, lr, vlr);
> -       vgic_sync_lr_elrsr(vcpu, lr, vlr);
> +       vlr.state = 0;
> +       vgic_queue_irq_to_lr(vcpu, irq, lr, vlr);
>   
>         return true;
>   }
> 
> 
> Christoffer, this is the same logic as Stephen's resolution, but
> can you confirm that it makes sense "semantically" as well?

This looks like a sensible resolution to me. I've given it a spin, and
it seems to behave as expected.

Thanks,

	M.
-- 
Without deviation from the norm, progress is not possible.

Re: linux-next: manual merge of the kvm-arm tree with Linus' tree

[Christoffer Dall]

On Wed, Apr 08, 2015 at 09:15:13AM +0100, Marc Zyngier wrote:
> On Tue, 7 Apr 2015 17:20:15 +0100
> Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@redhat.com> wrote:
> 
> Hi Paolo,
> 
> > On 18/03/2015 08:55, Christoffer Dall wrote:
> > > Hi Stephen,
> > > 
> > > On Wed, Mar 18, 2015 at 02:41:11PM +1100, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
> > >> Hi all,
> > >>
> > >> Today's linux-next merge of the kvm-arm tree got a conflict in
> > >> virt/kvm/arm/vgic.c between commit ae705930fca6 ("arm/arm64: KVM: Keep
> > >> elrsr/aisr in sync with software model") from Linus' tree and commit
> > >> 71760950bf3d ("arm/arm64: KVM: add a common vgic_queue_irq_to_lr fn")
> > >> from the kvm-arm tree.
> > >>
> > >> I fixed it up (I think - see below) and can carry the fix as necessary
> > >> (no action is required).
> > >>
> > >> -- 
> > >> Cheers,
> > >> Stephen Rothwell                    sfr@canb.auug.org.au
> > >>
> > >> diff --cc virt/kvm/arm/vgic.c
> > >> index c9f60f524588,ffd937ca5141..000000000000
> > >> --- a/virt/kvm/arm/vgic.c
> > >> +++ b/virt/kvm/arm/vgic.c
> > >> @@@ -982,9 -1092,7 +1098,8 @@@ bool vgic_queue_irq(struct kvm_vcpu *vc
> > >>   		if (vlr.source == sgi_source_id) {
> > >>   			kvm_debug("LR%d piggyback for IRQ%d\n", lr, vlr.irq);
> > >>   			BUG_ON(!test_bit(lr, vgic_cpu->lr_used));
> > >> - 			vlr.state |= LR_STATE_PENDING;
> > >> - 			vgic_set_lr(vcpu, lr, vlr);
> > >> + 			vgic_queue_irq_to_lr(vcpu, irq, lr, vlr);
> > >>  +			vgic_sync_lr_elrsr(vcpu, lr, vlr);
> > >>   			return true;
> > >>   		}
> > >>   	}
> > >> @@@ -1001,12 -1109,8 +1116,9 @@@
> > >>   
> > >>   	vlr.irq = irq;
> > >>   	vlr.source = sgi_source_id;
> > >> - 	vlr.state = LR_STATE_PENDING;
> > >> - 	if (!vgic_irq_is_edge(vcpu, irq))
> > >> - 		vlr.state |= LR_EOI_INT;
> > >> - 
> > >> - 	vgic_set_lr(vcpu, lr, vlr);
> > >> + 	vlr.state = 0;
> > >> + 	vgic_queue_irq_to_lr(vcpu, irq, lr, vlr);
> > >>  +	vgic_sync_lr_elrsr(vcpu, lr, vlr);
> > >>   
> > >>   	return true;
> > >>   }
> > > 
> > > Looks great, thanks!
> > > -Christoffer
> > 
> > Got the same conflict when pulling from the kvm-arm tree, I used
> > a different resolution though:
> > 
> > diff --cc virt/kvm/arm/vgic.c
> > index c9f60f524588,b70174e74868..8d550ff14700
> > --- a/virt/kvm/arm/vgic.c
> > +++ b/virt/kvm/arm/vgic.c
> > @@@ -955,6 -1095,25 +1101,26 @@@ static void vgic_retire_disabled_irqs(s
> >   	}
> >   }
> >   
> > + static void vgic_queue_irq_to_lr(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu, int irq,
> > + 				 int lr_nr, struct vgic_lr vlr)
> > + {
> > + 	if (vgic_irq_is_active(vcpu, irq)) {
> > + 		vlr.state |= LR_STATE_ACTIVE;
> > + 		kvm_debug("Set active, clear distributor: 0x%x\n", vlr.state);
> > + 		vgic_irq_clear_active(vcpu, irq);
> > + 		vgic_update_state(vcpu->kvm);
> > + 	} else if (vgic_dist_irq_is_pending(vcpu, irq)) {
> > + 		vlr.state |= LR_STATE_PENDING;
> > + 		kvm_debug("Set pending: 0x%x\n", vlr.state);
> > + 	}
> > + 
> > + 	if (!vgic_irq_is_edge(vcpu, irq))
> > + 		vlr.state |= LR_EOI_INT;
> > + 
> > + 	vgic_set_lr(vcpu, lr_nr, vlr);
> > ++	vgic_sync_lr_elrsr(vcpu, lr_nr, vlr);
> > + }
> > + 
> >   /*
> >    * Queue an interrupt to a CPU virtual interface. Return true on success,
> >    * or false if it wasn't possible to queue it.
> > @@@ -982,9 -1141,7 +1148,7 @@@ bool vgic_queue_irq(struct kvm_vcpu *vc
> >                 if (vlr.source == sgi_source_id) {
> >                         kvm_debug("LR%d piggyback for IRQ%d\n", lr, vlr.irq);
> >                         BUG_ON(!test_bit(lr, vgic_cpu->lr_used));
> > -                       vlr.state |= LR_STATE_PENDING;
> > -                       vgic_set_lr(vcpu, lr, vlr);
> > -                       vgic_sync_lr_elrsr(vcpu, lr, vlr);
> > +                       vgic_queue_irq_to_lr(vcpu, irq, lr, vlr);
> >                         return true;
> >                 }
> >         }
> > @@@ -1001,12 -1158,8 +1165,8 @@@
> >   
> >         vlr.irq = irq;
> >         vlr.source = sgi_source_id;
> > -       vlr.state = LR_STATE_PENDING;
> > -       if (!vgic_irq_is_edge(vcpu, irq))
> > -               vlr.state |= LR_EOI_INT;
> > - 
> > -       vgic_set_lr(vcpu, lr, vlr);
> > -       vgic_sync_lr_elrsr(vcpu, lr, vlr);
> > +       vlr.state = 0;
> > +       vgic_queue_irq_to_lr(vcpu, irq, lr, vlr);
> >   
> >         return true;
> >   }
> > 
> > 
> > Christoffer, this is the same logic as Stephen's resolution, but
> > can you confirm that it makes sense "semantically" as well?
> 
> This looks like a sensible resolution to me. I've given it a spin, and
> it seems to behave as expected.
> 
Yes, this is semantically slightly nicer in fact.

Thanks,
-Christoffer

Re: linux-next: manual merge of the kvm-arm tree with Linus' tree

[Christoffer Dall]

Hi Paolo and Marc,

On Tue, Apr 07, 2015 at 06:20:15PM +0200, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
> 
> 
> On 18/03/2015 08:55, Christoffer Dall wrote:
> > Hi Stephen,
> > 
> > On Wed, Mar 18, 2015 at 02:41:11PM +1100, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
> >> Hi all,
> >>
> >> Today's linux-next merge of the kvm-arm tree got a conflict in
> >> virt/kvm/arm/vgic.c between commit ae705930fca6 ("arm/arm64: KVM: Keep
> >> elrsr/aisr in sync with software model") from Linus' tree and commit
> >> 71760950bf3d ("arm/arm64: KVM: add a common vgic_queue_irq_to_lr fn")
> >> from the kvm-arm tree.
> >>
> >> I fixed it up (I think - see below) and can carry the fix as necessary
> >> (no action is required).
> >>
> >> -- 
> >> Cheers,
> >> Stephen Rothwell                    sfr@canb.auug.org.au
> >>
> >> diff --cc virt/kvm/arm/vgic.c
> >> index c9f60f524588,ffd937ca5141..000000000000
> >> --- a/virt/kvm/arm/vgic.c
> >> +++ b/virt/kvm/arm/vgic.c
> >> @@@ -982,9 -1092,7 +1098,8 @@@ bool vgic_queue_irq(struct kvm_vcpu *vc
> >>   		if (vlr.source == sgi_source_id) {
> >>   			kvm_debug("LR%d piggyback for IRQ%d\n", lr, vlr.irq);
> >>   			BUG_ON(!test_bit(lr, vgic_cpu->lr_used));
> >> - 			vlr.state |= LR_STATE_PENDING;
> >> - 			vgic_set_lr(vcpu, lr, vlr);
> >> + 			vgic_queue_irq_to_lr(vcpu, irq, lr, vlr);
> >>  +			vgic_sync_lr_elrsr(vcpu, lr, vlr);
> >>   			return true;
> >>   		}
> >>   	}
> >> @@@ -1001,12 -1109,8 +1116,9 @@@
> >>   
> >>   	vlr.irq = irq;
> >>   	vlr.source = sgi_source_id;
> >> - 	vlr.state = LR_STATE_PENDING;
> >> - 	if (!vgic_irq_is_edge(vcpu, irq))
> >> - 		vlr.state |= LR_EOI_INT;
> >> - 
> >> - 	vgic_set_lr(vcpu, lr, vlr);
> >> + 	vlr.state = 0;
> >> + 	vgic_queue_irq_to_lr(vcpu, irq, lr, vlr);
> >>  +	vgic_sync_lr_elrsr(vcpu, lr, vlr);
> >>   
> >>   	return true;
> >>   }
> > 
> > Looks great, thanks!
> > -Christoffer
> 
> Got the same conflict when pulling from the kvm-arm tree, I used
> a different resolution though:
> 
> diff --cc virt/kvm/arm/vgic.c
> index c9f60f524588,b70174e74868..8d550ff14700
> --- a/virt/kvm/arm/vgic.c
> +++ b/virt/kvm/arm/vgic.c
> @@@ -955,6 -1095,25 +1101,26 @@@ static void vgic_retire_disabled_irqs(s
>   	}
>   }
>   
> + static void vgic_queue_irq_to_lr(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu, int irq,
> + 				 int lr_nr, struct vgic_lr vlr)
> + {
> + 	if (vgic_irq_is_active(vcpu, irq)) {
> + 		vlr.state |= LR_STATE_ACTIVE;
> + 		kvm_debug("Set active, clear distributor: 0x%x\n", vlr.state);
> + 		vgic_irq_clear_active(vcpu, irq);
> + 		vgic_update_state(vcpu->kvm);
> + 	} else if (vgic_dist_irq_is_pending(vcpu, irq)) {
> + 		vlr.state |= LR_STATE_PENDING;
> + 		kvm_debug("Set pending: 0x%x\n", vlr.state);
> + 	}
> + 
> + 	if (!vgic_irq_is_edge(vcpu, irq))
> + 		vlr.state |= LR_EOI_INT;
> + 
> + 	vgic_set_lr(vcpu, lr_nr, vlr);
> ++	vgic_sync_lr_elrsr(vcpu, lr_nr, vlr);
> + }
> + 
>   /*
>    * Queue an interrupt to a CPU virtual interface. Return true on success,
>    * or false if it wasn't possible to queue it.
> @@@ -982,9 -1141,7 +1148,7 @@@ bool vgic_queue_irq(struct kvm_vcpu *vc
>                 if (vlr.source == sgi_source_id) {
>                         kvm_debug("LR%d piggyback for IRQ%d\n", lr, vlr.irq);
>                         BUG_ON(!test_bit(lr, vgic_cpu->lr_used));
> -                       vlr.state |= LR_STATE_PENDING;
> -                       vgic_set_lr(vcpu, lr, vlr);
> -                       vgic_sync_lr_elrsr(vcpu, lr, vlr);
> +                       vgic_queue_irq_to_lr(vcpu, irq, lr, vlr);
>                         return true;
>                 }
>         }
> @@@ -1001,12 -1158,8 +1165,8 @@@
>   
>         vlr.irq = irq;
>         vlr.source = sgi_source_id;
> -       vlr.state = LR_STATE_PENDING;
> -       if (!vgic_irq_is_edge(vcpu, irq))
> -               vlr.state |= LR_EOI_INT;
> - 
> -       vgic_set_lr(vcpu, lr, vlr);
> -       vgic_sync_lr_elrsr(vcpu, lr, vlr);
> +       vlr.state = 0;
> +       vgic_queue_irq_to_lr(vcpu, irq, lr, vlr);
>   
>         return true;
>   }
> 
> 
> Christoffer, this is the same logic as Stephen's resolution, but
> can you confirm that it makes sense "semantically" as well?
> 
> (Stephen, you'll still get the conflicts in linux-next for a
> couple of days as I finish local testing of KVM changes for 4.1).
> 
As it turns out, it was not the same logic as Stephen's resolution.
Stephen's resolution is bussy, because vlr is passed by value to
vgic_queue_irq_to_lr() and therefore the call to sync the elrsr does not
have any effect.

Unfortunately, it seems Paolo's more correct fix did not end up in
Linus' tree, so I guess I should just send a patch?

-Christoffer

Re: linux-next: manual merge of the kvm-arm tree with Linus' tree

[Paolo Bonzini]

On 16/04/2015 21:10, Christoffer Dall wrote:
>> > 
> As it turns out, it was not the same logic as Stephen's resolution.
> Stephen's resolution is bussy, because vlr is passed by value to
> vgic_queue_irq_to_lr() and therefore the call to sync the elrsr does not
> have any effect.
> 
> Unfortunately, it seems Paolo's more correct fix did not end up in
> Linus' tree, so I guess I should just send a patch?

Uhm, sure it did :)

http://git.kernel.org/cgit/linux/kernel/git/torvalds/linux.git/tree/virt/kvm/arm/vgic.c#n1121

Stephen's resolutions never end up in Linus's tree, as Stephen never
sends anything to Linus.

Paolo

Re: linux-next: manual merge of the kvm-arm tree with Linus' tree

[Christoffer Dall]

On Thu, Apr 16, 2015 at 09:39:06PM +0200, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
> 
> 
> On 16/04/2015 21:10, Christoffer Dall wrote:
> >> > 
> > As it turns out, it was not the same logic as Stephen's resolution.
> > Stephen's resolution is bussy, because vlr is passed by value to
> > vgic_queue_irq_to_lr() and therefore the call to sync the elrsr does not
> > have any effect.
> > 
> > Unfortunately, it seems Paolo's more correct fix did not end up in
> > Linus' tree, so I guess I should just send a patch?
> 
> Uhm, sure it did :)
> 
> http://git.kernel.org/cgit/linux/kernel/git/torvalds/linux.git/tree/virt/kvm/arm/vgic.c#n1121
> 

I'm an idiot; I looked at 4.0 instead of master, sorry for the noise.

-Christoffer