From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Halil Pasic Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 05/15] KVM: s390: unify pending_irqs() and pending_irqs_no_gisa() Date: Thu, 20 Dec 2018 13:15:35 +0100 Message-ID: <20181220131535.0bd61b5c@oc2783563651> References: <20181219191756.57973-1-mimu@linux.ibm.com> <20181219191756.57973-6-mimu@linux.ibm.com> <20181220120614.65acacac.cohuck@redhat.com> <62bf4bcf-585f-ddfc-e7a5-18fc946819d9@linux.ibm.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: <62bf4bcf-585f-ddfc-e7a5-18fc946819d9@linux.ibm.com> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Archive: List-Post: To: Michael Mueller Cc: Cornelia Huck , KVM Mailing List , Linux-S390 Mailing List , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Martin Schwidefsky , Heiko Carstens , Christian Borntraeger , Janosch Frank , David Hildenbrand , Pierre Morel List-ID: On Thu, 20 Dec 2018 12:49:56 +0100 Michael Mueller wrote: > > > On 20.12.18 12:06, Cornelia Huck wrote: > > On Wed, 19 Dec 2018 20:17:46 +0100 > > Michael Mueller wrote: > > > >> Use a single function with parameter irq_flags to differentiate > >> between cases. > >> > >> New irq flag: > >> IRQ_FLAG_LOCAL: include vcpu local interruptions pending > >> IRQ_FLAG_FLOATING: include vcpu floating interruptions pending > >> IRQ_FLAG_GISA: include GISA interruptions pending in IPM > > > > I presume that means that irqs may be in more than one set? Or are gisa > > irqs not considered floating irqs, because they use a different > > mechanism? > > Currently, the interruptions managed in GISA are floating only. But > that might change in future. I don't think GISA can be used for non-floating interrupts. Regards, Halil > The idea is not to subsume IRQ_FLAG_GISA > in IRQ_FLAG_FLOATING but to be able to address the right set of > procedures to determine the irq pending set for a given subset of irq > types that have different implementations. > > There might be a better name for IRQ_FLAG_FLOATING then? > [..]