From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.0 required=3.0 tests=MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_PASS autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id D0469C43387 for ; Thu, 20 Dec 2018 12:15:49 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [209.132.180.67]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id A9A3A21741 for ; Thu, 20 Dec 2018 12:15:49 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1731858AbeLTMPs (ORCPT ); Thu, 20 Dec 2018 07:15:48 -0500 Received: from mx0b-001b2d01.pphosted.com ([148.163.158.5]:38850 "EHLO mx0a-001b2d01.pphosted.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-FAIL) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1731466AbeLTMPr (ORCPT ); Thu, 20 Dec 2018 07:15:47 -0500 Received: from pps.filterd (m0098414.ppops.net [127.0.0.1]) by mx0b-001b2d01.pphosted.com (8.16.0.22/8.16.0.22) with SMTP id wBKC63kL140377 for ; Thu, 20 Dec 2018 07:15:46 -0500 Received: from e06smtp02.uk.ibm.com (e06smtp02.uk.ibm.com [195.75.94.98]) by mx0b-001b2d01.pphosted.com with ESMTP id 2pg9pgbsmt-1 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT) for ; Thu, 20 Dec 2018 07:15:46 -0500 Received: from localhost by e06smtp02.uk.ibm.com with IBM ESMTP SMTP Gateway: Authorized Use Only! Violators will be prosecuted for from ; Thu, 20 Dec 2018 12:15:41 -0000 Received: from b06cxnps4076.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (9.149.109.198) by e06smtp02.uk.ibm.com (192.168.101.132) with IBM ESMTP SMTP Gateway: Authorized Use Only! Violators will be prosecuted; (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256/256) Thu, 20 Dec 2018 12:15:38 -0000 Received: from d06av25.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (d06av25.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com [9.149.105.61]) by b06cxnps4076.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (8.14.9/8.14.9/NCO v10.0) with ESMTP id wBKCFaLc6422858 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=FAIL); Thu, 20 Dec 2018 12:15:36 GMT Received: from d06av25.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by IMSVA (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9008311C052; Thu, 20 Dec 2018 12:15:36 +0000 (GMT) Received: from d06av25.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by IMSVA (Postfix) with ESMTP id 39F8011C04A; Thu, 20 Dec 2018 12:15:36 +0000 (GMT) Received: from oc2783563651 (unknown [9.152.99.194]) by d06av25.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (Postfix) with ESMTP; Thu, 20 Dec 2018 12:15:36 +0000 (GMT) Date: Thu, 20 Dec 2018 13:15:35 +0100 From: Halil Pasic 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 Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 05/15] KVM: s390: unify pending_irqs() and pending_irqs_no_gisa() In-Reply-To: <62bf4bcf-585f-ddfc-e7a5-18fc946819d9@linux.ibm.com> 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> Organization: IBM X-Mailer: Claws Mail 3.11.1 (GTK+ 2.24.31; x86_64-redhat-linux-gnu) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-TM-AS-GCONF: 00 x-cbid: 18122012-0008-0000-0000-000002A4064B X-IBM-AV-DETECTION: SAVI=unused REMOTE=unused XFE=unused x-cbparentid: 18122012-0009-0000-0000-0000220EA37B Message-Id: <20181220131535.0bd61b5c@oc2783563651> X-Proofpoint-Virus-Version: vendor=fsecure engine=2.50.10434:,, definitions=2018-12-20_06:,, signatures=0 X-Proofpoint-Spam-Details: rule=outbound_notspam policy=outbound score=0 priorityscore=1501 malwarescore=0 suspectscore=0 phishscore=0 bulkscore=0 spamscore=0 clxscore=1015 lowpriorityscore=0 mlxscore=0 impostorscore=0 mlxlogscore=727 adultscore=0 classifier=spam adjust=0 reason=mlx scancount=1 engine=8.0.1-1810050000 definitions=main-1812200102 Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org 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? > [..]