On 2024/5/10 19:27, Jürgen Groß wrote: > On 10.05.24 12:32, Chen, Jiqian wrote: >> On 2024/5/10 18:21, Jürgen Groß wrote: >>> On 10.05.24 12:13, Chen, Jiqian wrote: >>>> On 2024/5/10 17:53, Jürgen Groß wrote: >>>>> On 10.05.24 11:06, Chen, Jiqian wrote: >>>>>> Hi, >>>>>> >>>>>> On 2024/5/10 14:46, Jürgen Groß wrote: >>>>>>> On 19.04.24 05:36, Jiqian Chen wrote: >>>>>>>> + >>>>>>>> + info->type = IRQT_PIRQ; >>>>>> I am considering whether I need to use a new type(like IRQT_GSI) here to >>>>>> distinguish with IRQT_PIRQ, because function restore_pirqs will process >>>>>> all IRQT_PIRQ. >>>>> >>>>> restore_pirqs() already considers gsi == 0 to be not GSI related. Isn't >>>>> this >>>>> enough? >>>> No, it is not enough. >>>> xen_pvh_add_gsi_irq_map adds the mapping of gsi and irq, but the value of >>>> gsi is not 0, >>>> once restore_pirqs is called, it will do PHYSDEVOP_map_pirq for that gsi, >>>> but in pvh dom0, we shouldn't do PHYSDEVOP_map_pirq. >>> >>> Okay, then add a new flag to info->u.pirq.flags for that purpose? >> I feel like adding "new flag to info->u.pirq.flags" is not as good as adding >> " new type to info->type". >> Because in restore_pirqs, it considers " info->type != IRQT_PIRQ", if adding >> " new flag to info->u.pirq.flags", we need to add a new condition in >> restore_pirqs. >> And actually this mapping(gsi and irq of pvh) doesn't have pirq, so it is >> not suitable to add to u.pirq.flags. > > Does this mean there is no other IRQT_PIRQ related activity relevant for > those GSIs/IRQs? Yes, I think so. > In that case I agree to add IRQT_GSI. Thank you! > > > Juergen
-- Best regards, Jiqian Chen.
