On 31/05/2019 18:25, Andre Przywara wrote:
On Tue, 28 May 2019 18:07:19 +0100
Julien Grall <julien.gr...@arm.com> wrote:
[ ... ]
While looking at the code, I noticed that in the new vgic vgic_get_irq()
looks unsafe to be called with interrupt unmasked. This is because one
of the callee (vgic_get_lpi()) takes a spinlock and not a spinlock_irq.
Andre, what do you think?
I think you are right. In vgic_inject_irq(), right after the call to
vgic_get_irq(), we use spin_lock_irqsave() on the irq_lock, so using the same
irqsave version on the lpi_list_lock seems needed. But this is somewhat
theoretical at the moment, as I think we will never LPIs through the new VGIC
at the moment.
That's correct, we probably want to add that in the list of TODOs for the new
vGIC :).
Cheers,
--
Julien Grall
_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org
https://lists.xenproject.org/mailman/listinfo/xen-devel
