Re: [Xen-ia64-devel] IOSAPIC virtualisation

[Alex Williamson <alex.williamson@xxxxxx>]

On Fri, 2006-02-03 at 09:33 +0100, Tristan Gingold wrote:
> Le Jeudi 02 Février 2006 19:16, Alex Williamson a écrit :
> >    Another random idea; it might also be cleaner for eventual upstream
> > inclusion if the xen code were pushed up into the iosapic_read/write/eoi
> > functions.  Maybe modify the functions to take an rte instead of the
> > addr.  Then the running_on_xen or CONFIG_XEN checks could be fairly
> > consolidated.
> I agree on this.  That's the reason why I made the check in 
> xen_iosapic_write/read.  Maybe the functions should be renamed later ?

Hi Tristan,

   Sure, that can wait till later when we think about merging w/
upstream.


> >    Is the domain check before unmasking still missing here?  Seems like
> > this block should be almost a mirror image of the masking block.
> Well I saw your comment about this.
> Only privilegied domain can do a physdev. So currently only dom0 can handle 
> interrupts.  For me this check is correct and enough.
> With drivers domain (which are not here), I think any drivers domain can 
> enable any interrupt. We may add checks but for me this is future work.
> 
> Do you have a specific check in mind ?

   I agree that we can't hit this problem right now, but it's easy to
fix and would be one less thing we might miss when we do enable driver
domains.  It looks the block of code to mask the vector could be copied
identically into the section to unmask the vector with the appropriate
s/mask_vec/unmask_vec and setting of the rte values.  I guess it keeps
catching my eye because the mask and unmask are not symmetric.  Thanks,

        Alex

-- 
Alex Williamson                             HP Linux & Open Source Lab


_______________________________________________
Xen-ia64-devel mailing list
Xen-ia64-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.xensource.com/xen-ia64-devel