lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2015]   [Aug]   [12]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
SubjectRe: [PATCH v3 06/10] VFIO: platform: add irq bypass producer management
From
Date
On Mon, 2015-08-10 at 15:21 +0200, Eric Auger wrote:
> This patch populates the IRQ bypass callacks:
> - stop/start producer simply consist in disabling/enabling the host irq
> - add/del consumer: basically set the automasked flag to false/true
>
> Signed-off-by: Eric Auger <eric.auger@linaro.org>
>
> ---
> v2 -> v3:
> - vfio_platform_irq_bypass_add_consumer now returns an error in case
> the IRQ is recognized as active
> - active boolean not set anymore
> - do not VFIO mask the IRQ anymore on unforward
>
> v1 -> v2:
> - device handle caching in vfio_platform_device is introduced in a
> separate patch
> - use container_of
> ---
> drivers/vfio/platform/vfio_platform_irq.c | 23 ++++++++++++++++++++++-
> 1 file changed, 22 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/vfio/platform/vfio_platform_irq.c b/drivers/vfio/platform/vfio_platform_irq.c
> index efaee58..400a188 100644
> --- a/drivers/vfio/platform/vfio_platform_irq.c
> +++ b/drivers/vfio/platform/vfio_platform_irq.c
> @@ -224,23 +224,44 @@ static int vfio_platform_is_active(struct vfio_platform_irq *irq)
>
> static void vfio_platform_irq_bypass_stop(struct irq_bypass_producer *prod)
> {
> + disable_irq(prod->irq);
> }
>
> static void vfio_platform_irq_bypass_start(struct irq_bypass_producer *prod)
> {
> + enable_irq(prod->irq);
> }
>
> static int vfio_platform_irq_bypass_add_consumer(
> struct irq_bypass_producer *prod,
> struct irq_bypass_consumer *cons)
> {
> - return 0;
> + struct vfio_platform_irq *irq =
> + container_of(prod, struct vfio_platform_irq, producer);
> +
> + /*
> + * if the IRQ is active at irqchip level or VFIO (auto)masked
> + * this means the host IRQ is already under injection in the
> + * guest and this not safe to change the forwarding state at
> + * that stage.
> + * It is not possible to differentiate user-space masking
> + * from auto-masking, leading to possible false detection of
> + * active state.
> + */
> + if (vfio_platform_is_active(irq))
> + return -EAGAIN;

Here's an example of why we don't want WARN_ON if a registration fails,
this is effectively random. When and how is a re-try going to happen?

> +
> + return vfio_platform_set_automasked(irq, false);

set_forwarded just seems so much more logical here.

> }
>
> static void vfio_platform_irq_bypass_del_consumer(
> struct irq_bypass_producer *prod,
> struct irq_bypass_consumer *cons)
> {
> + struct vfio_platform_irq *irq =
> + container_of(prod, struct vfio_platform_irq, producer);
> +
> + vfio_platform_set_automasked(irq, true);
> }
>
> static int vfio_set_trigger(struct vfio_platform_device *vdev, int index,





\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2015-08-12 21:21    [W:0.230 / U:24.632 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site