From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Mukesh Rathor Subject: Re: [[RFC PATCH 2/8]: PVH: changes related to initial boot and irq rewiring Date: Tue, 4 Sep 2012 16:56:22 -0700 Message-ID: <20120904165622.73bdf81c@mantra.us.oracle.com> References: <20120815180131.24aaa5ce@mantra.us.oracle.com> <1345193780.30865.109.camel@zakaz.uk.xensource.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: <1345193780.30865.109.camel@zakaz.uk.xensource.com> List-Unsubscribe: , List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: xen-devel-bounces@lists.xen.org Errors-To: xen-devel-bounces@lists.xen.org To: Ian Campbell Cc: "Xen-devel@lists.xensource.com" , Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk List-Id: xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org On Fri, 17 Aug 2012 09:56:20 +0100 Ian Campbell wrote: > > [...] > > diff --git a/arch/x86/xen/irq.c b/arch/x86/xen/irq.c > > index 1573376..7c7dfd1 100644 > > --- a/arch/x86/xen/irq.c > > +++ b/arch/x86/xen/irq.c > > @@ -100,6 +100,10 @@ PV_CALLEE_SAVE_REGS_THUNK(xen_irq_enable); > > > > static void xen_safe_halt(void) > > { > > + /* so event channel can be delivered to us, since in HVM > > container */ > > + if (xen_pvh_domain()) > > + local_irq_enable(); > > + > > /* Blocking includes an implicit local_irq_enable(). */ > > So this comment isn't true for a PVH guest? Why not? Should it be? > > I'm half wondering if we couldn't use native_safe_halt here, IIRC both > SVN and VTd handle "sti; hlt" in a sensible way on the hypervisor side > by calling hvm_hlt I was able to change it to use native_safe_halt.