[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <faa951a8-249e-b751-02e0-9a71879dff9f@redhat.com>
Date: Mon, 5 Aug 2019 13:07:45 +0200
From: Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@...hat.com>
To: Anup Patel <anup@...infault.org>
Cc: Anup Patel <Anup.Patel@....com>,
Palmer Dabbelt <palmer@...ive.com>,
Paul Walmsley <paul.walmsley@...ive.com>,
Radim K <rkrcmar@...hat.com>,
Daniel Lezcano <daniel.lezcano@...aro.org>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Atish Patra <Atish.Patra@....com>,
Alistair Francis <Alistair.Francis@....com>,
Damien Le Moal <Damien.LeMoal@....com>,
Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>,
"kvm@...r.kernel.org" <kvm@...r.kernel.org>,
"linux-riscv@...ts.infradead.org" <linux-riscv@...ts.infradead.org>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH v2 07/19] RISC-V: KVM: Implement
KVM_GET_ONE_REG/KVM_SET_ONE_REG ioctls
On 05/08/19 13:00, Anup Patel wrote:
>>> I think we can do this at start of kvm_riscv_vcpu_flush_interrupts() as well.
>> Did you mean at the end? (That is, after modifying
>> vcpu->arch.guest_csr.vsip based on mask and val). With the above switch
>> to percpu, the only write of CSR_VSIP and vsip_shadow should be in
>> kvm_riscv_vcpu_flush_interrupts, which in turn is only called from
>> kvm_vcpu_ioctl_run.
> Yes, I meant at the end of kvm_riscv_vcpu_flush_interrupts() but I am
> fine having separate kvm_riscv_update_vsip() function as well.
At end is certainly fine for me.
Paolo
Powered by blists - more mailing lists