Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH v3 13/16] xen/arm: Add support for GIC v3

[Ian Campbell <Ian.Campbell@xxxxxxxxxx>]

On Tue, 2014-05-06 at 19:41 +0530, Vijay Kilari wrote:
> On Tue, May 6, 2014 at 2:25 PM, Ian Campbell <Ian.Campbell@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > On Mon, 2014-05-05 at 17:38 +0530, Vijay Kilari wrote:
> >> > Shouldn't we panic here?
> >> >
> >> > And if we are going to panic, we might as well wait forever? (Perhaps
> >> > with a warning after some number of iterations.
> >> >
> >>     Already after 1sec there is warning. I think warning is enough here
> >> this is not such a critical scenario
> >
> > RWP timeout isn't critical? How does it get recovered?
> 
>    RWP is polled only to ensure that write effects are globally visibie.
>    Spec does not define any recovery mechanism. In kernel driver
>    this is prr_ratelimited.

My point was that the global visibility seems pretty important,
especially given the lack of a recovery mechanism.

>    May be we can increase the timeout and panic.

How about we print/warn after some timeout bit then continue to wait, on
the off chance that things recover?

I suppose panicing would cause a reboot which would be nice in so far as
it night unwedge things.

> >> >
> >> > The dsb() macro needs a scope parameter for a while now. Which version
> >> > of Xen is all this based on?
> >>
> >>   Based on Stefano's git where your scope parameter patch does not exist
> >
> > Stefano's git has dozens of branches in it. This series will obviously
> > need to be based on mainline before it can be applied, I suppose that
> > means you are waiting for some series of his to be applied?
> 
>    This patch set is based on no_maintenance_interrupts_v6 branch. I
> would be glade
> if you merge this series. Also Julien's patch set also impacts this series.
> But for now I just rebasing only on Stefano's patch set
> 
> >
> > Ian.
> >



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