Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1752958AbbDPTKn (ORCPT ); Thu, 16 Apr 2015 15:10:43 -0400 Received: from mail-la0-f49.google.com ([209.85.215.49]:35404 "EHLO mail-la0-f49.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752270AbbDPTKf (ORCPT ); Thu, 16 Apr 2015 15:10:35 -0400 Date: Thu, 16 Apr 2015 21:10:44 +0200 From: Christoffer Dall To: Paolo Bonzini Cc: Christoffer Dall , Stephen Rothwell , Marc Zyngier , linux-next@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, kvmarm@lists.cs.columbia.edu, Alex =?iso-8859-1?Q?Benn=E9e?= Subject: Re: linux-next: manual merge of the kvm-arm tree with Linus' tree Message-ID: <20150416191044.GF6186@cbox> References: <20150318144111.1e56c6d9@canb.auug.org.au> <20150318075537.GC23225@cbox> <552403BF.8090008@redhat.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <552403BF.8090008@redhat.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 4856 Lines: 140 Hi Paolo and Marc, On Tue, Apr 07, 2015 at 06:20:15PM +0200, Paolo Bonzini wrote: > > > On 18/03/2015 08:55, Christoffer Dall wrote: > > Hi Stephen, > > > > On Wed, Mar 18, 2015 at 02:41:11PM +1100, Stephen Rothwell wrote: > >> Hi all, > >> > >> Today's linux-next merge of the kvm-arm tree got a conflict in > >> virt/kvm/arm/vgic.c between commit ae705930fca6 ("arm/arm64: KVM: Keep > >> elrsr/aisr in sync with software model") from Linus' tree and commit > >> 71760950bf3d ("arm/arm64: KVM: add a common vgic_queue_irq_to_lr fn") > >> from the kvm-arm tree. > >> > >> I fixed it up (I think - see below) and can carry the fix as necessary > >> (no action is required). > >> > >> -- > >> Cheers, > >> Stephen Rothwell sfr@canb.auug.org.au > >> > >> diff --cc virt/kvm/arm/vgic.c > >> index c9f60f524588,ffd937ca5141..000000000000 > >> --- a/virt/kvm/arm/vgic.c > >> +++ b/virt/kvm/arm/vgic.c > >> @@@ -982,9 -1092,7 +1098,8 @@@ bool vgic_queue_irq(struct kvm_vcpu *vc > >> if (vlr.source == sgi_source_id) { > >> kvm_debug("LR%d piggyback for IRQ%d\n", lr, vlr.irq); > >> BUG_ON(!test_bit(lr, vgic_cpu->lr_used)); > >> - vlr.state |= LR_STATE_PENDING; > >> - vgic_set_lr(vcpu, lr, vlr); > >> + vgic_queue_irq_to_lr(vcpu, irq, lr, vlr); > >> + vgic_sync_lr_elrsr(vcpu, lr, vlr); > >> return true; > >> } > >> } > >> @@@ -1001,12 -1109,8 +1116,9 @@@ > >> > >> vlr.irq = irq; > >> vlr.source = sgi_source_id; > >> - vlr.state = LR_STATE_PENDING; > >> - if (!vgic_irq_is_edge(vcpu, irq)) > >> - vlr.state |= LR_EOI_INT; > >> - > >> - vgic_set_lr(vcpu, lr, vlr); > >> + vlr.state = 0; > >> + vgic_queue_irq_to_lr(vcpu, irq, lr, vlr); > >> + vgic_sync_lr_elrsr(vcpu, lr, vlr); > >> > >> return true; > >> } > > > > Looks great, thanks! > > -Christoffer > > Got the same conflict when pulling from the kvm-arm tree, I used > a different resolution though: > > diff --cc virt/kvm/arm/vgic.c > index c9f60f524588,b70174e74868..8d550ff14700 > --- a/virt/kvm/arm/vgic.c > +++ b/virt/kvm/arm/vgic.c > @@@ -955,6 -1095,25 +1101,26 @@@ static void vgic_retire_disabled_irqs(s > } > } > > + static void vgic_queue_irq_to_lr(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu, int irq, > + int lr_nr, struct vgic_lr vlr) > + { > + if (vgic_irq_is_active(vcpu, irq)) { > + vlr.state |= LR_STATE_ACTIVE; > + kvm_debug("Set active, clear distributor: 0x%x\n", vlr.state); > + vgic_irq_clear_active(vcpu, irq); > + vgic_update_state(vcpu->kvm); > + } else if (vgic_dist_irq_is_pending(vcpu, irq)) { > + vlr.state |= LR_STATE_PENDING; > + kvm_debug("Set pending: 0x%x\n", vlr.state); > + } > + > + if (!vgic_irq_is_edge(vcpu, irq)) > + vlr.state |= LR_EOI_INT; > + > + vgic_set_lr(vcpu, lr_nr, vlr); > ++ vgic_sync_lr_elrsr(vcpu, lr_nr, vlr); > + } > + > /* > * Queue an interrupt to a CPU virtual interface. Return true on success, > * or false if it wasn't possible to queue it. > @@@ -982,9 -1141,7 +1148,7 @@@ bool vgic_queue_irq(struct kvm_vcpu *vc > if (vlr.source == sgi_source_id) { > kvm_debug("LR%d piggyback for IRQ%d\n", lr, vlr.irq); > BUG_ON(!test_bit(lr, vgic_cpu->lr_used)); > - vlr.state |= LR_STATE_PENDING; > - vgic_set_lr(vcpu, lr, vlr); > - vgic_sync_lr_elrsr(vcpu, lr, vlr); > + vgic_queue_irq_to_lr(vcpu, irq, lr, vlr); > return true; > } > } > @@@ -1001,12 -1158,8 +1165,8 @@@ > > vlr.irq = irq; > vlr.source = sgi_source_id; > - vlr.state = LR_STATE_PENDING; > - if (!vgic_irq_is_edge(vcpu, irq)) > - vlr.state |= LR_EOI_INT; > - > - vgic_set_lr(vcpu, lr, vlr); > - vgic_sync_lr_elrsr(vcpu, lr, vlr); > + vlr.state = 0; > + vgic_queue_irq_to_lr(vcpu, irq, lr, vlr); > > return true; > } > > > Christoffer, this is the same logic as Stephen's resolution, but > can you confirm that it makes sense "semantically" as well? > > (Stephen, you'll still get the conflicts in linux-next for a > couple of days as I finish local testing of KVM changes for 4.1). > As it turns out, it was not the same logic as Stephen's resolution. Stephen's resolution is bussy, because vlr is passed by value to vgic_queue_irq_to_lr() and therefore the call to sync the elrsr does not have any effect. Unfortunately, it seems Paolo's more correct fix did not end up in Linus' tree, so I guess I should just send a patch? -Christoffer -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/