Hi, Sorry for the formatting.
On Sat, 9 Nov 2019, 04:27 Stefano Stabellini, <sstabell...@kernel.org> wrote: > On Thu, 7 Nov 2019, Peng Fan wrote: > > The end should be GICD_ISACTIVERN not GICD_ISACTIVER. > > > > Signed-off-by: Peng Fan <peng....@nxp.com> > > Reviewed-by: Stefano Stabellini <sstabell...@kernel.org> > To be honest, I am not sure the code is correct. A read to those registers should tell you the list of interrupts active. As we always return 0, this will not return the correct state of the GIC. I know that returning the list of actives interrupts is complicated with the old vGIC, but I don't think silently ignoring it is a good idea. The question here is why the guest accessed those registers? What is it trying to figure out? > Juergen, I think this fix should be in the release (and also > backported to stable trees.) > Without an understanding of the problem, I disagree with this request (see above). As an aside, the range ISPENDR has the same issue. Cheers, > > > > --- > > xen/arch/arm/vgic-v3.c | 2 +- > > 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-) > > > > diff --git a/xen/arch/arm/vgic-v3.c b/xen/arch/arm/vgic-v3.c > > index 422b94f902..e802f2055a 100644 > > --- a/xen/arch/arm/vgic-v3.c > > +++ b/xen/arch/arm/vgic-v3.c > > @@ -706,7 +706,7 @@ static int __vgic_v3_distr_common_mmio_read(const > char *name, struct vcpu *v, > > goto read_as_zero; > > > > /* Read the active status of an IRQ via GICD/GICR is not supported > */ > > - case VRANGE32(GICD_ISACTIVER, GICD_ISACTIVER): > > + case VRANGE32(GICD_ISACTIVER, GICD_ISACTIVERN): > > case VRANGE32(GICD_ICACTIVER, GICD_ICACTIVERN): > > goto read_as_zero; > > > > -- > > 2.16.4 > > > > _______________________________________________ > Xen-devel mailing list > Xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org > https://lists.xenproject.org/mailman/listinfo/xen-devel
_______________________________________________ Xen-devel mailing list Xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org https://lists.xenproject.org/mailman/listinfo/xen-devel
