Re: [Xen-devel] [[RFC PATCH 2/8]: PVH: changes related to initial boot and irq rewiring

[Mukesh Rathor <mukesh.rathor@xxxxxxxxxx>]

On Fri, 17 Aug 2012 09:56:20 +0100
Ian Campbell <Ian.Campbell@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> 
> [...]
> > diff --git a/arch/x86/xen/irq.c b/arch/x86/xen/irq.c
> > index 1573376..7c7dfd1 100644
> > --- a/arch/x86/xen/irq.c
> > +++ b/arch/x86/xen/irq.c
> > @@ -100,6 +100,10 @@ PV_CALLEE_SAVE_REGS_THUNK(xen_irq_enable);
> >  
> >  static void xen_safe_halt(void)
> >  {
> > +   /* so event channel can be delivered to us, since in HVM
> > container */
> > +   if (xen_pvh_domain())
> > +           local_irq_enable();
> > +
> >     /* Blocking includes an implicit local_irq_enable(). */
> 
> So this comment isn't true for a PVH guest? Why not? Should it be?
> 
> I'm half wondering if we couldn't use native_safe_halt here, IIRC both
> SVN and VTd handle "sti; hlt" in a sensible way on the hypervisor side
> by calling hvm_hlt

I was able to change it to use native_safe_halt. 



_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.xen.org/xen-devel