> -----Original Message----- > From: dunl...@gmail.com [mailto:dunl...@gmail.com] On Behalf Of George > Dunlap > Sent: Friday, September 18, 2015 10:34 PM > To: Dario Faggioli > Cc: Jan Beulich; George Dunlap; Tian, Kevin; Keir Fraser; Andrew Cooper; > xen-devel@lists.xen.org; Wu, Feng > Subject: Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH v7 15/17] vmx: VT-d posted-interrupt core > logic > handling > > On Fri, Sep 18, 2015 at 3:31 PM, George Dunlap > <george.dun...@eu.citrix.com> wrote: > >> As said, me too. Perhaps we can go for option 1, which is simpler, > >> cleaner and more consistent, considering the current status of the > >> code. We can always investigate, in future, whether and how to > >> implement the optimization for all the blockings, if beneficial and fea > >> sible, or have them diverge, if deemed worthwhile. > > > > Sounds like a plan. > > Er, just in case that idiom wasn't clear: Option 1 sounds like a > *good* plan, so unless Feng disagrees, let's go with that. :-)
Sorry for the late response, I was on leave last Friday. Thanks for your discussions and suggestions. I have one question about option 1. I find that there are two places where '_VPF_blocked' can get set: vcpu_block() and do_poll(). After putting the logic in vcpu_block(), do we need to care about do_poll(). I don't know the purpose of do_poll() and the usage case of it. Dario/George, could you please share some knowledge about it? Thanks a lot! Thanks, Feng > > -George _______________________________________________ Xen-devel mailing list Xen-devel@lists.xen.org http://lists.xen.org/xen-devel
