From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Julien Grall Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 11/16] xen/arm: IRQ: Protect IRQ to be shared between domains and XEN Date: Mon, 07 Apr 2014 15:53:02 +0100 Message-ID: <5342BBCE.8060808@linaro.org> References: <1396557727-19102-1-git-send-email-julien.grall@linaro.org> <1396557727-19102-12-git-send-email-julien.grall@linaro.org> <1396881997.22845.112.camel@kazak.uk.xensource.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: Received: from mail6.bemta5.messagelabs.com ([195.245.231.135]) by lists.xen.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from ) id 1WXAv3-00019x-DJ for xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org; Mon, 07 Apr 2014 14:53:05 +0000 Received: by mail-ee0-f50.google.com with SMTP id c13so730798eek.37 for ; Mon, 07 Apr 2014 07:53:03 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <1396881997.22845.112.camel@kazak.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.xenproject.org, tim@xen.org, stefano.stabellini@citrix.com List-Id: xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org On 04/07/2014 03:46 PM, Ian Campbell wrote: > On Thu, 2014-04-03 at 21:42 +0100, Julien Grall wrote: > > $subject "do not allow IRQs to be shared between..." I will change the commit title. >> The current dt_route_irq_to_guest implementation set IRQ_GUEST no matter if the > > s/set/sets/; s/no matter if/even if/ > >> IRQ is correctly setup. > > "is already correctly setup" (I think that's what you meant) > >> As IRQ can be shared between devices, if the devices are not assigned to the > > s/As/An/ ? I meant "As an ...". But "An" sounds better with the change below. >> same domain or Xen, this could result to route the IRQ to the domain instead of > > "then this could result in routing the IRQ..." >> Xen ... >> >> Also avoid to rely on wrong behaviour when Xen is routing an IRQ to DOM0. > > "Also avoid relying on the wrong behaviour ..." perhaps? If that not > then I'm not sure what this is referring to. Apart from that doubt the > code looks ok to me. Currently Xen doesn't check the return of routing the IRQ into DOM0. So, if it fails we silently ignore the error. Regards, -- Julien Grall