On Sat, Nov 20, 2010 at 01:19:31AM +0000, Stefano Stabellini wrote:
> On Fri, 19 Nov 2010, Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk wrote:
> > On Fri, Nov 19, 2010 at 01:58:03PM +0000, Stefano Stabellini wrote:
> > > Use PHYSDEVOP_get_free_pirq to implement find_unbound_pirq
> > >
> > > Use the new hypercall PHYSDEVOP_get_free_pirq to ask Xen to allocate a
> > > pirq. Remove the unsupported PHYSDEVOP_get_nr_pirqs hypercall to get the
> > > amount of pirq available.
> > >
> > > Signed-off-by: Stefano Stabellini <stefano.stabellini@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > >
> > > diff --git a/drivers/xen/events.c b/drivers/xen/events.c
> > > index 321a0c8..ffd286e 100644
> > > --- a/drivers/xen/events.c
> > > +++ b/drivers/xen/events.c
> > > @@ -382,12 +382,17 @@ static int get_nr_hw_irqs(void)
> > > return ret;
> > > }
> > >
> > > -/* callers of this function should make sure that PHYSDEVOP_get_nr_pirqs
> > > - * succeeded otherwise nr_pirqs won't hold the right value */
> > > -static int find_unbound_pirq(void)
> > > +static int find_unbound_pirq(int type)
> > > {
> > > - int i;
> > > - for (i = nr_pirqs-1; i >= 0; i--) {
> > > + int rc, i;
> > > + struct physdev_get_free_pirq op_get_free_pirq;
> > > + op_get_free_pirq.type = type;
> > > +
> > > + rc = HYPERVISOR_physdev_op(PHYSDEVOP_get_free_pirq, &op_get_free_pirq);
> > > + if (!rc)
> > > + return op_get_free_pirq.pirq;
> > > +
> > > + for (i = 16; i <= nr_pirqs-1; i++) {
> >
> > 16? No no. Why not re-use the old loop, like so:
> >
> > for (i = nr_pirqs-1; i >= 0; i--) {
> >
>
> Because we don't know the real nr_pirqs anymore (PHYSDEVOP_get_nr_pirqs
> has been removed), so it is highly possible that starting from the top
> down would give us pirq numbers out of range in Xen. Therefore we need
> to start from the bottom up, and the bottom for Xen is 16.
Right, I forgot about the hypercall call. How about using LEGACY_IRQ instead
then?
>
>
> > > if (pirq_to_irq[i] < 0)
> > > return i;
> > > }
> > > @@ -669,7 +674,7 @@ void xen_allocate_pirq_msi(char *name, int *irq, int
> > > *pirq)
> > > if (*irq == -1)
> > > goto out;
> > >
> > > - *pirq = find_unbound_pirq();
> > > + *pirq = find_unbound_pirq(MAP_PIRQ_TYPE_MSI);
> > > if (*pirq == -1)
> > > goto out;
> > >
> > > @@ -1504,23 +1509,12 @@ void xen_callback_vector(void) {}
> > > void __init xen_init_IRQ(void)
> > > {
> > > int i, rc;
> > > - struct physdev_nr_pirqs op_nr_pirqs;
> > >
> > > cpu_evtchn_mask_p = kcalloc(nr_cpu_ids, sizeof(struct cpu_evtchn_s),
> > > GFP_KERNEL);
> > > irq_info = kcalloc(nr_irqs, sizeof(*irq_info), GFP_KERNEL);
> > >
> > > - rc = HYPERVISOR_physdev_op(PHYSDEVOP_get_nr_pirqs, &op_nr_pirqs);
> > > - if (rc < 0) {
> > > - nr_pirqs = nr_irqs;
> > > - if (rc != -ENOSYS)
> > > - printk(KERN_WARNING "PHYSDEVOP_get_nr_pirqs returned
> > > rc=%d\n", rc);
> > > - } else {
> > > - if (xen_pv_domain() && !xen_initial_domain())
> > > - nr_pirqs = max((int)op_nr_pirqs.nr_pirqs, nr_irqs);
> > > - else
> > > - nr_pirqs = op_nr_pirqs.nr_pirqs;
> > > - }
> > > + nr_pirqs = nr_irqs;
> >
> > Why not just get rid of nr_pirgs altogether then? And use 'nr_irqs' instead?
> >
>
> Yeah, I guess we could do that. I kept it around just to make it more
> obvious that the max pirq number is different from nr_irqs and we don't
> know what the exact value is.
But with this change it is the same, is it not?
"nr_pirgs = nr_irqs;"
Or when you say "max pirq" you are referring to something else altogether?
_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.xensource.com/xen-devel
|
Home