On Wed, 27 Nov 2019, Julien Grall wrote:
> On Tue, 26 Nov 2019, 23:18 Stefano Stabellini, <sstabell...@kernel.org> wrote:
> On Fri, 15 Nov 2019, Stewart Hildebrand wrote:
> > Allow vgic_get_hw_irq_desc to be called with a vcpu argument.
> >
> > Use vcpu argument in vgic_connect_hw_irq.
> >
> > vgic_connect_hw_irq is called for PPIs and SPIs, not SGIs. Enforce
> with
> > ASSERTs.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Stewart Hildebrand <stewart.hildebr...@dornerworks.com>
> >
> > ---
> > v3: new patch
> >
> > ---
> > Note: I have only modified the old vgic to allow delivery of PPIs.
> > ---
> > xen/arch/arm/gic-vgic.c | 24 ++++++++++++++++--------
> > xen/arch/arm/vgic.c | 6 +++---
> > 2 files changed, 19 insertions(+), 11 deletions(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/xen/arch/arm/gic-vgic.c b/xen/arch/arm/gic-vgic.c
> > index 98c021f1a8..2c66a8fa92 100644
> > --- a/xen/arch/arm/gic-vgic.c
> > +++ b/xen/arch/arm/gic-vgic.c
> > @@ -418,7 +418,7 @@ struct irq_desc *vgic_get_hw_irq_desc(struct
> domain *d, struct vcpu *v,
> > {
> > struct pending_irq *p;
> >
> > - ASSERT(!v && virq >= 32);
> > + ASSERT((!v && (virq >= 32)) || (!d && v && (virq >= 16) && (virq
> < 32)));
>
> I don't think !d is necessary for this to work as intended so I would
> limit the ASSERT to
>
> ASSERT((!v && (virq >= 32)) || (v && (virq >= 16) && (virq < 32)));
>
> the caller can always pass v->domain
>
> But then you have the risk to run into d != v->domain. So at least with the
> ASSERT you document the expectation.
Yes, that was not my intention.
It makes sense in certain scenarios for v to be NULL. What I was trying
to say is that when v is not-NULL, then also d should be not-NULL for
consistency. I don't think it makes sense to pass v corresponding to
vcpu1 of domain2 and d == NULL, right?
I don't know if you want to add a (d == v->domain) check to the ASSERT
as it is pretty busy already. I am OK either way.
_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org
https://lists.xenproject.org/mailman/listinfo/xen-devel