On 2019-11-22 18:51, Andre Przywara wrote:
Hi Marc,
this is still a bit rough, and only briefly tested, but I wanted to
hear your opinion on the general approach (using a second list in
addition to the ap_list). Some ugly bits come from the fact that the
two lists are not that different, so we have to consider both of them
at times. This is what I wanted to avoid with just one list that gets
filtered on the fly.
Or I am just stupid and don't see how it can be done properly ;-)
I don't know about that, but I think there is a better way.
You have essentially two sets of pending interrupts:
1) those that are enabled and group-enabled, that end up in the AP list
2) those that are either disabled and/or group-disabled
Today, (2) are not on any list. What I'm suggesting is that we create
a list for these interrupts that cannot be forwarded.
Then enabling an interrupt or a group is a matter of moving pending
interrupts from one list to another. And I think most of the logic
can be hidden in vgic_queue_irq_unlock().
M.
--
Jazz is not dead. It just smells funny...
_______________________________________________
kvmarm mailing list
kvmarm@lists.cs.columbia.edu
https://lists.cs.columbia.edu/mailman/listinfo/kvmarm
