[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <cbb6a332-f230-ff5e-ce64-5dbbd6df02b5@redhat.com>
Date: Thu, 20 Jan 2022 12:10:22 +0100
From: Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@...hat.com>
To: Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Cc: aleksandar.qemu.devel@...il.com, alexandru.elisei@....com,
anup.patel@....com, aou@...s.berkeley.edu, atish.patra@....com,
borntraeger@...ux.ibm.com, bp@...en8.de, catalin.marinas@....com,
chenhuacai@...nel.org, dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com,
frankja@...ux.ibm.com, frederic@...nel.org, gor@...ux.ibm.com,
hca@...ux.ibm.com, james.morse@....com, jmattson@...gle.com,
joro@...tes.org, luto@...nel.org, maz@...nel.org, mingo@...hat.com,
mpe@...erman.id.au, nsaenzju@...hat.com, palmer@...belt.com,
paulmck@...nel.org, paul.walmsley@...ive.com, peterz@...radead.org,
seanjc@...gle.com, suzuki.poulose@....com, svens@...ux.ibm.com,
tglx@...utronix.de, tsbogend@...ha.franken.de, vkuznets@...hat.com,
wanpengli@...cent.com, will@...nel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 4/7] kvm/mips: rework guest entry logic
On 1/19/22 11:58, Mark Rutland wrote:
> + * TODO: is there a barrier which ensures that pending interrupts are
> + * recognised? Currently this just hopes that the CPU takes any pending
> + * interrupts between the enable and disable.
> + */
> + local_irq_enable();
> + local_irq_disable();
>
It's okay, there is irq_enable_hazard() but it's automatically included
in arch_local_irq_enable().
Paolo
Powered by blists - more mailing lists