Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH v10 29/32] ARM: vITS: handle INVALL command

[Julien Grall <julien.grall@xxxxxxx>]

Hi Andre,

On 05/26/2017 06:35 PM, Andre Przywara wrote:
> +    do
> +    {
> +        nr_lpis = radix_tree_gang_lookup(&its->d->arch.vgic.pend_lpi_tree,
> +                                         (void **)pirqs, vlpi,
> +                                         ARRAY_SIZE(pirqs));
> +
> +        for ( i = 0; i < nr_lpis; i++ )
> +        {
> +            /* We only care about LPIs on our VCPU. */
> +            if ( pirqs[i]->lpi_vcpu_id != vcpu->vcpu_id )
> +                continue;
> +
> +            vlpi = pirqs[i]->irq;
> +            /* If that fails for a single LPI, carry on to handle the rest. */
> +            ret = update_lpi_property(its->d, pirqs[i]);
> +            if ( !ret )
> +                update_lpi_vgic_status(vcpu, pirqs[i]);
> +        }
> +    /*
> +     * Loop over the next gang of pending_irqs until we reached the end of
> +     * a (fully populated) tree or the lookup function returns less LPIs than
> +     * it has been asked for.
> +     */
> +    } while ( (++vlpi < its->d->arch.vgic.nr_lpis) &&
> +              (nr_lpis == ARRAY_SIZE(pirqs)) );
> +
> +    read_unlock(&its->d->arch.vgic.pend_lpi_tree_lock);
> +    spin_unlock_irqrestore(&vcpu->arch.vgic.lock, flags);
> +
> +    return ret;
The implementation looks good. However, one question. ret would be equal 
to the latest LPI updated. So even if all LPIs have failed but the 
latest, you will still return 0. Is it what you want?
Cheers,

--
Julien Grall

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