On 18/03/2015 08:55, Christoffer Dall wrote:
> Hi Stephen,
>
> On Wed, Mar 18, 2015 at 02:41:11PM +1100, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
>> Hi all,
>>
>> Today's linux-next merge of the kvm-arm tree got a conflict in
>> virt/kvm/arm/vgic.c between commit ae705930fca6 ("arm/arm64: KVM: Keep
>> elrsr/aisr in sync with software model") from Linus' tree and commit
>> 71760950bf3d ("arm/arm64: KVM: add a common vgic_queue_irq_to_lr fn")
>> from the kvm-arm tree.
>>
>> I fixed it up (I think - see below) and can carry the fix as necessary
>> (no action is required).
>>
>> --
>> Cheers,
>> Stephen Rothwell [email protected]
>>
>> diff --cc virt/kvm/arm/vgic.c
>> index c9f60f524588,ffd937ca5141..000000000000
>> --- a/virt/kvm/arm/vgic.c
>> +++ b/virt/kvm/arm/vgic.c
>> @@@ -982,9 -1092,7 +1098,8 @@@ bool vgic_queue_irq(struct kvm_vcpu *vc
>> if (vlr.source == sgi_source_id) {
>> kvm_debug("LR%d piggyback for IRQ%d\n", lr, vlr.irq);
>> BUG_ON(!test_bit(lr, vgic_cpu->lr_used));
>> - vlr.state |= LR_STATE_PENDING;
>> - vgic_set_lr(vcpu, lr, vlr);
>> + vgic_queue_irq_to_lr(vcpu, irq, lr, vlr);
>> + vgic_sync_lr_elrsr(vcpu, lr, vlr);
>> return true;
>> }
>> }
>> @@@ -1001,12 -1109,8 +1116,9 @@@
>>
>> vlr.irq = irq;
>> vlr.source = sgi_source_id;
>> - vlr.state = LR_STATE_PENDING;
>> - if (!vgic_irq_is_edge(vcpu, irq))
>> - vlr.state |= LR_EOI_INT;
>> -
>> - vgic_set_lr(vcpu, lr, vlr);
>> + vlr.state = 0;
>> + vgic_queue_irq_to_lr(vcpu, irq, lr, vlr);
>> + vgic_sync_lr_elrsr(vcpu, lr, vlr);
>>
>> return true;
>> }
>
> Looks great, thanks!
> -Christoffer
Got the same conflict when pulling from the kvm-arm tree, I used
a different resolution though:
diff --cc virt/kvm/arm/vgic.c
index c9f60f524588,b70174e74868..8d550ff14700
--- a/virt/kvm/arm/vgic.c
+++ b/virt/kvm/arm/vgic.c
@@@ -955,6 -1095,25 +1101,26 @@@ static void vgic_retire_disabled_irqs(s
}
}
+ static void vgic_queue_irq_to_lr(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu, int irq,
+ int lr_nr, struct vgic_lr vlr)
+ {
+ if (vgic_irq_is_active(vcpu, irq)) {
+ vlr.state |= LR_STATE_ACTIVE;
+ kvm_debug("Set active, clear distributor: 0x%x\n", vlr.state);
+ vgic_irq_clear_active(vcpu, irq);
+ vgic_update_state(vcpu->kvm);
+ } else if (vgic_dist_irq_is_pending(vcpu, irq)) {
+ vlr.state |= LR_STATE_PENDING;
+ kvm_debug("Set pending: 0x%x\n", vlr.state);
+ }
+
+ if (!vgic_irq_is_edge(vcpu, irq))
+ vlr.state |= LR_EOI_INT;
+
+ vgic_set_lr(vcpu, lr_nr, vlr);
++ vgic_sync_lr_elrsr(vcpu, lr_nr, vlr);
+ }
+
/*
* Queue an interrupt to a CPU virtual interface. Return true on success,
* or false if it wasn't possible to queue it.
@@@ -982,9 -1141,7 +1148,7 @@@ bool vgic_queue_irq(struct kvm_vcpu *vc
if (vlr.source == sgi_source_id) {
kvm_debug("LR%d piggyback for IRQ%d\n", lr, vlr.irq);
BUG_ON(!test_bit(lr, vgic_cpu->lr_used));
- vlr.state |= LR_STATE_PENDING;
- vgic_set_lr(vcpu, lr, vlr);
- vgic_sync_lr_elrsr(vcpu, lr, vlr);
+ vgic_queue_irq_to_lr(vcpu, irq, lr, vlr);
return true;
}
}
@@@ -1001,12 -1158,8 +1165,8 @@@
vlr.irq = irq;
vlr.source = sgi_source_id;
- vlr.state = LR_STATE_PENDING;
- if (!vgic_irq_is_edge(vcpu, irq))
- vlr.state |= LR_EOI_INT;
-
- vgic_set_lr(vcpu, lr, vlr);
- vgic_sync_lr_elrsr(vcpu, lr, vlr);
+ vlr.state = 0;
+ vgic_queue_irq_to_lr(vcpu, irq, lr, vlr);
return true;
}
Christoffer, this is the same logic as Stephen's resolution, but
can you confirm that it makes sense "semantically" as well?
(Stephen, you'll still get the conflicts in linux-next for a
couple of days as I finish local testing of KVM changes for 4.1).
Paolo
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [email protected]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
