Xen devel - Mar 2006 - RE: [patch] make hypercall_preempt_check() a little moresensitive

>From: Jimi Xenidis [mailto:jimix@watson.ibm.com]
>Sent: 2006年3月31日 10:20
>Yes, some bits can be controlled by xenlinux
OK, it''s always good thing to learn a different model.
>
>> to
>> disable real external interrupts on that physical processor,
>
>Yes, even this bit, tho'' it this is on the 970 class of processor,
>newer processors can be configured to not disable externals, but they
>can still set the bit.
So, is there any brief info about the model that ppc is currently using, like 
whether dom0/domU is para-virtualized or unmodifield, if para-virtualized, 
to which extent? Maybe I asked too many questions in one mail, but such 
info may help other people to understand your specific requirement more 
easily. I think I''m still lacking of a whole picture about current
xen/ppc
model. :-)
>
>This is an interesting example,  but why deliver an upcall thru the
>HV in the first place, why not just call the evtchn handler directly?
Then you may fall into dead loop, since evtchn_device_upcall tries to get 
spinlock while unmask_evtchn path may already holds the lock.

Thanks,
Kevin

_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@lists.xensource.com
http://lists.xensource.com/xen-devel