From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: marc.zyngier@arm.com (Marc Zyngier)
Date: Wed, 8 Nov 2017 15:08:36 +0000
Subject: [PATCH v5 16/26] KVM: arm/arm64: GICv4: Propagate property
 updates to VLPIs
In-Reply-To: <6763d90f-93bf-ddbb-d456-5979b8870aa2@redhat.com>
References: <20171027142855.21584-1-marc.zyngier@arm.com>
 <20171027142855.21584-17-marc.zyngier@arm.com>
 <6763d90f-93bf-ddbb-d456-5979b8870aa2@redhat.com>
Message-ID: <49bff080-0908-cc7a-7036-543f963180a5@arm.com>
To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org

On 07/11/17 21:28, Auger Eric wrote:
> Hi Marc,
> 
> On 27/10/2017 16:28, Marc Zyngier wrote:
>> Upon updating a property, we propagate it all the way to the physical
>> ITS, and ask for an INV command to be executed there.
>>
>> Acked-by: Christoffer Dall <cdall@linaro.org>
>> Signed-off-by: Marc Zyngier <marc.zyngier@arm.com>
>> ---
>>  virt/kvm/arm/vgic/vgic-its.c | 3 +++
>>  1 file changed, 3 insertions(+)
>>
>> diff --git a/virt/kvm/arm/vgic/vgic-its.c b/virt/kvm/arm/vgic/vgic-its.c
>> index 0b7e648e7a0c..2e77c7c83942 100644
>> --- a/virt/kvm/arm/vgic/vgic-its.c
>> +++ b/virt/kvm/arm/vgic/vgic-its.c
>> @@ -296,6 +296,9 @@ static int update_lpi_config(struct kvm *kvm, struct vgic_irq *irq,
>>  		spin_unlock(&irq->irq_lock);
>>  	}
>>  
>> +	if (irq->hw)
>> +		return its_prop_update_vlpi(irq->host_irq, prop, true);
>> +
>>  	return 0;
>>  }
> I am confused by the vgic_queue_irq_unlock() on the "hw" path. Why is it
> needed in hw mode?

It's not. I guess we could bypass this altogether and take a short cut
after having updated the priority and enabled fields.

Thanks,

	M.
-- 
Jazz is not dead. It just smells funny...