Re: Ping: [PATCH 2/2] x86/vpic: also execute dpci callback for non-specific EOI

[Roger Pau Monné <roger.pau@xxxxxxxxxx>]

On Tue, Sep 29, 2020 at 12:58:20PM +0200, Jan Beulich wrote:
> On 29.09.2020 12:27, Roger Pau Monné wrote:
> > On Mon, Sep 21, 2020 at 12:05:51PM +0200, Jan Beulich wrote:
> >> On 21.08.2020 09:45, Jan Beulich wrote:
> >>> On 20.08.2020 18:28, Andrew Cooper wrote:
> >>>> On 20/08/2020 16:34, Roger Pau Monne wrote:
> >>>>> Currently the dpci EOI callback is only executed for specific EOIs.
> >>>>> This is wrong as non-specific EOIs will also clear the ISR bit and
> >>>>> thus end the interrupt. Re-arrange the code a bit so that the common
> >>>>> EOI handling path can be shared between all EOI modes.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Signed-off-by: Roger Pau Monné <roger.pau@xxxxxxxxxx>
> >>>>> ---
> >>>>>  xen/arch/x86/hvm/vpic.c | 10 +++++-----
> >>>>>  1 file changed, 5 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)
> >>>>>
> >>>>> diff --git a/xen/arch/x86/hvm/vpic.c b/xen/arch/x86/hvm/vpic.c
> >>>>> index feb1db2ee3..3cf12581e9 100644
> >>>>> --- a/xen/arch/x86/hvm/vpic.c
> >>>>> +++ b/xen/arch/x86/hvm/vpic.c
> >>>>> @@ -249,15 +249,15 @@ static void vpic_ioport_write(
> >>>>>                  if ( priority == VPIC_PRIO_NONE )
> >>>>>                      break;
> >>>>>                  pin = (priority + vpic->priority_add) & 7;
> >>>>> -                vpic->isr &= ~(1 << pin);
> >>>>> -                if ( cmd == 5 )
> >>>>> -                    vpic->priority_add = (pin + 1) & 7;
> >>>>> -                break;
> >>>>> +                goto common_eoi;
> >>>>> +
> >>>>>              case 3: /* Specific EOI                */
> >>>>>              case 7: /* Specific EOI & Rotate       */
> >>>>>                  pin = val & 7;
> >>>>
> >>>> You'll need a /* Fallthrough */ here to keep various things happy.
> >>>
> >>> Are you sure? There's ...
> >>>
> >>>> Otherwise, Acked-by: Andrew Cooper <andrew.cooper3@xxxxxxxxxx>
> >>>>
> >>>> Can fix on commit if you're happy.
> >>>>
> >>>>> +
> >>>>> +            common_eoi:
> >>>
> >>> ... an ordinary label here, not a case one.
> >>
> >> I would have wanted to commit this, but it's still not clear to me
> >> whether the adjustment you ask for is really needed.
> > 
> > Was about to send a further series I have on top of this and saw this
> > is still on my patch queue. I'm happy with either way, but I would
> > like to get this committed if possible (as I think from a technical
> > PoV we all agree it's correct).
> 
> Hmm, did you mean to send this _to_ Andrew, with me on _cc_? There's
> nothing I can do without his further input.

Yes, it's fixed now.

Please see above Andrew.

Roger.