[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <alpine.DEB.2.10.1605161620240.2494@sstabellini-ThinkPad-X260>
Date: Mon, 16 May 2016 16:21:38 +0100 (BST)
From: Stefano Stabellini <sstabellini@...nel.org>
To: Boris Ostrovsky <boris.ostrovsky@...cle.com>
cc: Stefano Stabellini <sstabellini@...nel.org>,
David Vrabel <david.vrabel@...rix.com>,
Juergen Gross <jgross@...e.com>,
Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk <konrad.wilk@...cle.com>,
xen-devel@...ts.xenproject.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH] xen/x86: actually allocate legacy interrupts
on PV guests
On Mon, 16 May 2016, Boris Ostrovsky wrote:
> On 05/16/2016 07:23 AM, Stefano Stabellini wrote:
> > On Wed, 27 Apr 2016, Boris Ostrovsky wrote:
> >> On 04/27/2016 09:40 AM, David Vrabel wrote:
> >>> On 27/04/16 14:38, Boris Ostrovsky wrote:
> >>>> int xen_nr_legacy_irqs()
> >>>> {
> >>>> if (xen_hvm_domain())
> >>>> return nr_legacy_irqs();
> >>>> if (xen_initial_domain())
> >>>> return NR_IRQS_LEGACY;
> >>>> return 0;
> >>>> }
> >>> Yeah, if that does the right thing...
> >> I think it will break xen_allocate_irq_gsi() again, unless we check for HVM
> >> domain explicitly. Which would be ugly.
> > I guess we all forgot about this patch, in the meantime the merge window
> > has opened.
> >
> > Should we go ahead with:
> >
> > http://marc.info/?l=linux-kernel&m=146115812124261&w=2
> >
> > ?
> > It might not be complete, but it is certainly an improvement.
>
> Yes, I think what you have there is the best option. What I suggested
> above won't work and adding another check for HVM domain in
> xen_allocate_irq_gsi() won't look good (although it does work).
>
> It will need to go to stable as well (4.4+ ?)
All right, I'll commit it to for-linus-4.7 with
Cc: stable@...r.kernel.org
Powered by blists - more mailing lists