Stefano Stabellini
2012-Jan-30 14:31 UTC
[PATCH] xen pvhvm: do not remap pirqs onto evtchns if !xen_have_vector_callback
Signed-off-by: Stefano Stabellini <stefano.stabellini@eu.citrix.com> diff --git a/arch/x86/pci/xen.c b/arch/x86/pci/xen.c index 492ade8..d99346e 100644 --- a/arch/x86/pci/xen.c +++ b/arch/x86/pci/xen.c @@ -374,7 +374,7 @@ int __init pci_xen_init(void) int __init pci_xen_hvm_init(void) { - if (!xen_feature(XENFEAT_hvm_pirqs)) + if (!xen_have_vector_callback || !xen_feature(XENFEAT_hvm_pirqs)) return 0; #ifdef CONFIG_ACPI
Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk
2012-Jan-31 16:27 UTC
Re: [PATCH] xen pvhvm: do not remap pirqs onto evtchns if !xen_have_vector_callback
On Mon, Jan 30, 2012 at 02:31:46PM +0000, Stefano Stabellini wrote:> > Signed-off-by: Stefano Stabellini <stefano.stabellini@eu.citrix.com>So the xen_have_vector_callback looks to be only set by 1398 if (xen_feature(XENFEAT_hvm_callback_vector)) 1399 xen_have_vector_callback = 1; So could this be just done via a check for that instead?> > diff --git a/arch/x86/pci/xen.c b/arch/x86/pci/xen.c > index 492ade8..d99346e 100644 > --- a/arch/x86/pci/xen.c > +++ b/arch/x86/pci/xen.c > @@ -374,7 +374,7 @@ int __init pci_xen_init(void) > > int __init pci_xen_hvm_init(void) > { > - if (!xen_feature(XENFEAT_hvm_pirqs)) > + if (!xen_have_vector_callback || !xen_feature(XENFEAT_hvm_pirqs)) > return 0; > > #ifdef CONFIG_ACPI > -- > To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in > the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org > More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html > Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Stefano Stabellini
2012-Jan-31 16:40 UTC
Re: [PATCH] xen pvhvm: do not remap pirqs onto evtchns if !xen_have_vector_callback
On Tue, 31 Jan 2012, Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk wrote:> On Mon, Jan 30, 2012 at 02:31:46PM +0000, Stefano Stabellini wrote: > > > > Signed-off-by: Stefano Stabellini <stefano.stabellini@eu.citrix.com> > > So the xen_have_vector_callback looks to be only set by > > 1398 if (xen_feature(XENFEAT_hvm_callback_vector)) > 1399 xen_have_vector_callback = 1; > > So could this be just done via a check for that instead? >Sure, but I don''t think it would be better: using xen_have_vector_callback is more consistent and give us the flexibility of allowing users to manually override it in the future.
Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk
2012-Feb-01 01:08 UTC
Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH] xen pvhvm: do not remap pirqs onto evtchns if !xen_have_vector_callback
On Tue, Jan 31, 2012 at 04:40:26PM +0000, Stefano Stabellini wrote:> On Tue, 31 Jan 2012, Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk wrote: > > On Mon, Jan 30, 2012 at 02:31:46PM +0000, Stefano Stabellini wrote: > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Stefano Stabellini <stefano.stabellini@eu.citrix.com> > > > > So the xen_have_vector_callback looks to be only set by > > > > 1398 if (xen_feature(XENFEAT_hvm_callback_vector)) > > 1399 xen_have_vector_callback = 1; > > > > So could this be just done via a check for that instead? > > > > Sure, but I don''t think it would be better: using > xen_have_vector_callback is more consistent and give us the flexibility > of allowing users to manually override it in the future.ok. applied. Hm, I was thinking to put on stable@kernel.org - but how far back should it go? 2.6.37?> > _______________________________________________ > Xen-devel mailing list > Xen-devel@lists.xensource.com > http://lists.xensource.com/xen-devel
Stefano Stabellini
2012-Feb-01 11:09 UTC
Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH] xen pvhvm: do not remap pirqs onto evtchns if !xen_have_vector_callback
On Wed, 1 Feb 2012, Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk wrote:> On Tue, Jan 31, 2012 at 04:40:26PM +0000, Stefano Stabellini wrote: > > On Tue, 31 Jan 2012, Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk wrote: > > > On Mon, Jan 30, 2012 at 02:31:46PM +0000, Stefano Stabellini wrote: > > > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Stefano Stabellini <stefano.stabellini@eu.citrix.com> > > > > > > So the xen_have_vector_callback looks to be only set by > > > > > > 1398 if (xen_feature(XENFEAT_hvm_callback_vector)) > > > 1399 xen_have_vector_callback = 1; > > > > > > So could this be just done via a check for that instead? > > > > > > > Sure, but I don''t think it would be better: using > > xen_have_vector_callback is more consistent and give us the flexibility > > of allowing users to manually override it in the future. > > ok. applied. Hm, I was thinking to put on stable@kernel.org - but how > far back should it go? 2.6.37?Yes, I think is 2.6.37 when we introduced using XENFEAT_hvm_pirqs.
Seemingly Similar Threads
- [PATCH] xen: initialize xen panic handler for PVHVM
- [PATCH] xen: initialize xen panic handler for PVHVM
- [PATCH] xen: initialize xen panic handler for PVHVM
- Xen 4.1.1 HVM guest cdrom trouble, lost interrupts, ata failed commands (frozen)
- passthroughed msix device