On Tue, 2015-05-05 at 13:00 +0100, Julien Grall wrote: > > I'm inclined to just go with this patch for now, unless Stefano is > > nacking it. > > This patch seem to turn into a workaround, would it be better to move > check idle_check in apply_p2m_check? > > I will prepare a follow-up to avoid properly the call > hypercall_preempt_check with idle_vcpu. > > > One question first: What aspect of local_events_need_delivery relies on > > the vcpu not being an idle one? I suppose something is not initialised, > > but what. > > Everything related to the vGIC is not initialized. It's used in > local_event_need_delivery_nomask (see irq_to_pending and > gic_events_need_devlivery).
Would it be better to arrange that vcpu_event_delivery_is_enabled is never true for an idle vcpu? Either with an explicit check or by arranging regs->cpsr to say that? Ian. > _______________________________________________ Xen-devel mailing list Xen-devel@lists.xen.org http://lists.xen.org/xen-devel
