[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20120423151123.GC24481@phenom.dumpdata.com>
Date: Mon, 23 Apr 2012 11:11:23 -0400
From: Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk <konrad.wilk@...cle.com>
To: Lin Ming <mlin@...pku.edu.cn>
Cc: Ian Campbell <Ian.Campbell@...rix.com>,
Andrew Cooper <Andrew.Cooper3@...rix.com>,
"xen-devel@...ts.xensource.com" <xen-devel@...ts.xensource.com>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH] xen/apic: implement io apic read with
hypercall
> >> > How about return -1 on error?
> >> > The calling function can check -1 for error.
> >>
> >> Isn't -1 potentially (at least theoretically) a valid value to read from
> >> one of these registers?
> >
> > Yeah, but then we are back to crashing at bootup (with dom0) :-)
> >
> > Perhaps the fallback is to emulate (so retain some of the original code)
> > as we have been since .. uh 3.0?
>
> Do you mean the return value of io_apic_read in 3.0?
No. I meant that we would continue to emulate. The improvement
is that now we do:
if (reg == 0x1)
return 0x00170020;
else if (reg == 0x0)
return apic << 24;
instead of 0xfdfdfdfd.
> It's 0xffffffff.
Now it is 0xfdfdfdfd.
I am suggesting that instead of BUG_ON(), we fallback to do returning
an emulatated IO_APIC values - like the ones that this original patch
cooked up..
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists