From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1KCz0t-0005Fi-5t for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Sun, 29 Jun 2008 11:40:27 -0400 Received: from exim by lists.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1KCz0s-0005FW-PG for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Sun, 29 Jun 2008 11:40:26 -0400 Received: from [199.232.76.173] (port=36058 helo=monty-python.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1KCz0s-0005FR-MM for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Sun, 29 Jun 2008 11:40:26 -0400 Received: from il.qumranet.com ([212.179.150.194]:58006) by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1KCz0s-0005dp-59 for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Sun, 29 Jun 2008 11:40:26 -0400 Date: Sun, 29 Jun 2008 18:40:25 +0300 From: Gleb Natapov Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH 1/3] Change qemu_set_irq() to return status information. Message-ID: <20080629154025.GB12972@minantech.com> References: <20080629140120.5626.1590.stgit@gleb-debian.qumranet.com.qumranet.com> <20080629140220.5626.33071.stgit@gleb-debian.qumranet.com.qumranet.com> <200806291538.10664.paul@codesourcery.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <200806291538.10664.paul@codesourcery.com> Reply-To: qemu-devel@nongnu.org List-Id: qemu-devel.nongnu.org List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , To: Paul Brook Cc: qemu-devel@nongnu.org On Sun, Jun 29, 2008 at 03:38:10PM +0100, Paul Brook wrote: > On Sunday 29 June 2008, Gleb Natapov wrote: > > The return value is less then zero if interrupt is masked, zero if it > > is known that interrupt is lost (due to coalescing) or greater then zero > > if interrupt is delivered or was successfully queued for delivery by > > interrupt controller. Device emulation can use this info as it pleases. > > Included patch adds detection of interrupt coalescing into PIC and APIC > > code for edge triggered interrupts. > > This is woefully incomplete, and obviously hasn't been tested on anything > other than x86 targets. > Yes, you are right. It was not tested on anything other than x86. Do you see why this approach will not work on other architectures? Can you elaborate on what current patch is missing for other architectures support? The initial goal is to fix RTC/PIT problem on x86 while do not hurt any other architectures in any way. -- Gleb.