On Tue, Dec 04, 2012 at 12:45:12PM +, Peter Maydell wrote:
> On 4 December 2012 12:27, Dong Aisheng wrote:
> > On Mon, Dec 03, 2012 at 01:22:07PM +, Peter Maydell wrote:
> >> What we're really providing the guest here is a hardware-accelerated
> >
On Tue, Dec 04, 2012 at 12:05:12PM +, Peter Maydell wrote:
> On 4 December 2012 11:44, Dong Aisheng wrote:
> > On Mon, Dec 03, 2012 at 12:02:55PM +, Peter Maydell wrote:
>
> > Probably one way we could try to avoid this issue is also saving the
> > banked registe
On Mon, Dec 03, 2012 at 01:22:07PM +, Peter Maydell wrote:
> On 3 December 2012 12:02, Peter Maydell wrote:
> > By far the largest part of the save/restore work here is figuring out
> > what the right state to expose to userspace is so we can retain that
> > compatibility guarantee.
>
> Some
On Mon, Dec 03, 2012 at 12:02:55PM +, Peter Maydell wrote:
> On 3 December 2012 10:36, Dong Aisheng wrote:
> > The patch is mainly for implementing the vgic state save and retore
> > function.
> > I'm not sure the current implementation method is the most proper wa
From: Dong Aisheng
Add vgic state save and retore via KVM_SET_IRQCHIP/KVM_GET_IRQCHIP.
Signed-off-by: Dong Aisheng
---
The patch is mainly for implementing the vgic state save and retore function.
I'm not sure the current implementation method is the most proper way.
So i'd like t
; + pr_warn("Unhandled access %d %08llx %d\n",
> + mmio->is_write, mmio->phys_addr, mmio->len);
> + return false;
> + }
> +
> + spin_lock(&vcpu->kvm->arch.vgic.lock);
> + updated_state = range-&
-ENODEV;
> + }
> +
> + if (vgic_ioaddr_overlap(kvm)) {
> + kvm->arch.vgic.vgic_dist_base = VGIC_ADDR_UNDEF;
> + kvm->arch.vgic.vgic_cpu_base = VGIC_ADDR_UNDEF;
Missing mutex_unlock?
> + return -EINVAL;
> + }
> +
> +
+
> + while (r->len) {
> + if (addr >= r->base &&
> + (addr + mmio->len) <= (r->base + r->len))
> + return r;
> + r++;
> + }
> +
> + return NULL;
> +}
> +
> +/**
>
