From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Keir Fraser Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 03/13] xen: introduce cpumask_from_bitmap Date: Thu, 25 Apr 2013 16:13:49 +0100 Message-ID: References: <1366901504.20256.558.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: <1366901504.20256.558.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: "Keir (Xen.org)" , Stefano Stabellini , "Tim (Xen.org)" , xen-devel , Julien Grall , Jan Beulich List-Id: xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org On 25/04/2013 15:51, "Ian Campbell" wrote: > On Thu, 2013-04-25 at 15:44 +0100, Ian Campbell wrote: >> On Thu, 2013-04-25 at 15:42 +0100, Ian Campbell wrote: >>> And it really wants to act on sets of real physical cpus (hence cpumask_t)? >> >> Actually, vcpus. Perhaps cpumask_t is the wrong datatype then? > > x86 defines for_each_set_bit in terms of find_first_bit and > find_next_bit (both of which we have on ARM). Seems like we should just > carry that over? Yup, seems a shame to duplicate it into asm-arm, but I can live with it. I can imagine some arch wanting a specialised version of it sometime. Certainly using cpumask_t for vcpus is very obviously wrong! -- Keir >>> It's emulating a write to a GICD (read: APIC ;-)) register which causes >>> an SGI (read: IPI) to be sent. The value you write includes an 8 bit >>> mask indicating the target processors. >>> >>> See "[PATCH v3 04/13] xen/arm: support for guest SGI" in this series. >>> >>> Ian >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Xen-devel mailing list >> Xen-devel@lists.xen.org >> http://lists.xen.org/xen-devel > >