|
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index] Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH v9 21/28] ARM: vITS: handle MAPTI command
On Thu, 11 May 2017, Andre Przywara wrote:
> @@ -556,6 +583,93 @@ static int its_handle_mapd(struct virt_its *its,
> uint64_t *cmdptr)
> return ret;
> }
>
> +static int its_handle_mapti(struct virt_its *its, uint64_t *cmdptr)
> +{
> + uint32_t devid = its_cmd_get_deviceid(cmdptr);
> + uint32_t eventid = its_cmd_get_id(cmdptr);
> + uint32_t intid = its_cmd_get_physical_id(cmdptr), _intid;
> + uint16_t collid = its_cmd_get_collection(cmdptr);
> + struct pending_irq *pirq;
> + struct vcpu *vcpu = NULL;
> + int ret = -1;
I think we need to check the eventid to be valid, don't we?
> + if ( its_cmd_get_command(cmdptr) == GITS_CMD_MAPI )
> + intid = eventid;
> +
> + spin_lock(&its->its_lock);
> + /*
> + * Check whether there is a valid existing mapping. If yes, behavior is
> + * unpredictable, we choose to ignore this command here.
> + * This makes sure we start with a pristine pending_irq below.
> + */
> + if ( read_itte_locked(its, devid, eventid, &vcpu, &_intid) &&
> + _intid != INVALID_LPI )
> + {
> + spin_unlock(&its->its_lock);
> + return -1;
> + }
> +
> + /* Enter the mapping in our virtual ITS tables. */
> + if ( !write_itte_locked(its, devid, eventid, collid, intid, &vcpu) )
> + {
> + spin_unlock(&its->its_lock);
> + return -1;
> + }
> +
> + spin_unlock(&its->its_lock);
> +
> + /*
> + * Connect this virtual LPI to the corresponding host LPI, which is
> + * determined by the same device ID and event ID on the host side.
> + * This returns us the corresponding, still unused pending_irq.
> + */
> + pirq = gicv3_assign_guest_event(its->d, its->doorbell_address,
> + devid, eventid, vcpu, intid);
> + if ( !pirq )
> + goto out_remove_mapping;
> +
> + vgic_init_pending_irq(pirq, intid);
> +
> + /*
> + * Now read the guest's property table to initialize our cached state.
> + * It can't fire at this time, because it is not known to the host yet.
> + * We don't need the VGIC VCPU lock here, because the pending_irq isn't
> + * in the radix tree yet.
> + */
> + ret = update_lpi_property(its->d, pirq);
> + if ( ret )
> + goto out_remove_host_entry;
> +
> + pirq->lpi_vcpu_id = vcpu->vcpu_id;
> + /*
> + * Mark this LPI as new, so any older (now unmapped) LPI in any LR
> + * can be easily recognised as such.
> + */
> + set_bit(GIC_IRQ_GUEST_PRISTINE_LPI, &pirq->status);
> +
> + /*
> + * Now insert the pending_irq into the domain's LPI tree, so that
> + * it becomes live.
> + */
> + write_lock(&its->d->arch.vgic.pend_lpi_tree_lock);
> + ret = radix_tree_insert(&its->d->arch.vgic.pend_lpi_tree, intid, pirq);
> + write_unlock(&its->d->arch.vgic.pend_lpi_tree_lock);
> +
> + if ( !ret )
> + return 0;
> +
> +out_remove_host_entry:
> + gicv3_remove_guest_event(its->d, its->doorbell_address, devid, eventid);
> +
> +out_remove_mapping:
> + spin_lock(&its->its_lock);
> + write_itte_locked(its, devid, eventid,
> + UNMAPPED_COLLECTION, INVALID_LPI, NULL);
> + spin_unlock(&its->its_lock);
> +
> + return ret;
> +}
_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://lists.xen.org/xen-devel
|
![]() |
Lists.xenproject.org is hosted with RackSpace, monitoring our |