Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH 6/7] xen/arm: introduce gic callbacks

[Ian Campbell <Ian.Campbell@xxxxxxxxxx>]

On Fri, 2013-02-15 at 13:04 +0000, Ian Campbell wrote:
> On Fri, 2013-02-15 at 12:57 +0000, Ian Campbell wrote:
> > On Thu, 2013-02-14 at 16:37 +0000, Stefano Stabellini wrote:
> > > Introduce callbacks to receive notifications from the GIC when a
> > > specific IRQ has been EOI'd by the guest.
> > > 
> > > Signed-off-by: Stefano Stabellini <stefano.stabellini@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > > ---
> > >  xen/arch/arm/gic.c        |   12 ++++++++++++
> > >  xen/arch/arm/setup.c      |    1 +
> > >  xen/include/asm-arm/gic.h |    5 +++++
> > >  3 files changed, 18 insertions(+), 0 deletions(-)
> > > 
> > > diff --git a/xen/arch/arm/gic.c b/xen/arch/arm/gic.c
> > > index 1c8219d..0ecc0f1 100644
> > > --- a/xen/arch/arm/gic.c
> > > +++ b/xen/arch/arm/gic.c
> > > @@ -52,6 +52,7 @@ static struct {
> > >  static irq_desc_t irq_desc[NR_IRQS];
> > >  static DEFINE_PER_CPU(irq_desc_t[NR_LOCAL_IRQS], local_irq_desc);
> > >  static DEFINE_PER_CPU(uint64_t, lr_mask);
> > > +static gic_callback_fn_t gic_callbacks[NR_IRQS];
> > 
> > I think this should rather go in struct arch_irq_desc.
> 
> Actually, aren't these *virtual* interrupt callbacks?
> 
> It is possible that IRQ30 for one guest might not have the same use as
> IRQ30 in another, which suggests that this belongs in some domain
> specific location, like struct pending_irq.

Did we end up not needing this patch?

Ian.



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