[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <bf8256f2-17a4-e1ec-ec35-a10bde734b65@linux.ibm.com>
Date: Wed, 25 Apr 2018 13:06:31 +0200
From: Halil Pasic <pasic@...ux.ibm.com>
To: Cornelia Huck <cohuck@...hat.com>
Cc: Pierre Morel <pmorel@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
Dong Jia Shi <bjsdjshi@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
pasic@...ux.vnet.ibm.com, linux-s390@...r.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, kvm@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 01/10] vfio: ccw: Moving state change out of IRQ context
On 04/25/2018 08:57 AM, Cornelia Huck wrote:
>> AFAIU this will be the problem of the person implementing the clear
>> and the halt for vfio-ccw. I.e. it's a non-problem right now.
> Well, that person is me:) I will post some RFC Real Soon Now if I stop
> getting sidetracked...
>
Makes sense. It should be fine either way AFAIU.
CSCH, more precisely the clear function is supposed to clear the
interruption request(s) too. But I guess there is no way of the CP to
identify an I/O interrupt that should have been cleared -- that is catch
us disrespecting the architecture. I can't think of a way to establish
must happen before relationship...
But discarding the first interrupt and delivering just one for the CSCH
is fine too for the same reason.
Regards,
Halil
Powered by blists - more mailing lists