On Mon, Feb 02, 2009 at 04:23:40PM +0200, Avi Kivity wrote:
> Gleb Natapov wrote:
>> On Mon, Feb 02, 2009 at 04:04:55PM +0200, Avi Kivity wrote:
>>
>>> Gleb Natapov wrote:
>>>
> Right, I was thinking about
>
> if (irq >= 0 && irq < IOAPIC_NUM_PINS) {
>
> Should return
Gleb Natapov wrote:
On Mon, Feb 02, 2009 at 04:04:55PM +0200, Avi Kivity wrote:
Gleb Natapov wrote:
Right, I was thinking about
if (irq >= 0 && irq < IOAPIC_NUM_PINS) {
Should return MASKED if irq is outside the acceptable range?
Is this ever can be false? Shou
On Mon, Feb 02, 2009 at 04:04:55PM +0200, Avi Kivity wrote:
> Gleb Natapov wrote:
>>> Right, I was thinking about
>>>
>>> if (irq >= 0 && irq < IOAPIC_NUM_PINS) {
>>>
>>> Should return MASKED if irq is outside the acceptable range?
>>>
>>>
>> Is this ever can be false? Should we BUG() if i
Gleb Natapov wrote:
Right, I was thinking about
if (irq >= 0 && irq < IOAPIC_NUM_PINS) {
Should return MASKED if irq is outside the acceptable range?
Is this ever can be false? Should we BUG() if irq is out of range?
Yes, the number ultimately comes from userspace.
--
erro
On Wed, Jan 28, 2009 at 06:37:36PM +0200, Gleb Natapov wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 27, 2009 at 01:41:07PM -0200, Marcelo Tosatti wrote:
> > On Tue, Jan 27, 2009 at 03:27:39PM +0200, Gleb Natapov wrote:
> > > > -1 here ?
> > > >
> > > I think 1 is better here. For level=0 we always want to report that
>
On Tue, Jan 27, 2009 at 01:41:07PM -0200, Marcelo Tosatti wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 27, 2009 at 03:27:39PM +0200, Gleb Natapov wrote:
> > > -1 here ?
> > >
> > I think 1 is better here. For level=0 we always want to report that
> > interrupt
> > was injected and for the case of edge triggered interrup
On Tue, Jan 27, 2009 at 03:27:39PM +0200, Gleb Natapov wrote:
> > -1 here ?
> >
> I think 1 is better here. For level=0 we always want to report that interrupt
> was injected and for the case of edge triggered interrupt and level=1
> ioapic_service() will always be called. BTW it seems that expres
On Mon, Jan 26, 2009 at 02:10:38PM -0200, Marcelo Tosatti wrote:
> Hi Gleb,
>
> On Wed, Jan 21, 2009 at 02:34:28PM +0200, Gleb Natapov wrote:
> > Use this one instead. Adds capabilities checks.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Gleb Natapov
>
> > index 179dcb0..2752016 100644
> > --- a/arch/x86/kvm/i8259.
Hi Gleb,
On Wed, Jan 21, 2009 at 02:34:28PM +0200, Gleb Natapov wrote:
> Use this one instead. Adds capabilities checks.
>
> Signed-off-by: Gleb Natapov
> index 179dcb0..2752016 100644
> --- a/arch/x86/kvm/i8259.c
> +++ b/arch/x86/kvm/i8259.c
> @@ -76,12 +76,13 @@ void kvm_pic_clear_isr_ack(str
Use this one instead. Adds capabilities checks.
Signed-off-by: Gleb Natapov
diff --git a/arch/ia64/kvm/kvm-ia64.c b/arch/ia64/kvm/kvm-ia64.c
index dbf527a..d83d3ff 100644
--- a/arch/ia64/kvm/kvm-ia64.c
+++ b/arch/ia64/kvm/kvm-ia64.c
@@ -182,7 +182,7 @@ int kvm_dev_ioctl_check_extension(long ext)
Signed-off-by: Gleb Natapov
diff --git a/arch/ia64/kvm/kvm-ia64.c b/arch/ia64/kvm/kvm-ia64.c
index dbf527a..21c8445 100644
--- a/arch/ia64/kvm/kvm-ia64.c
+++ b/arch/ia64/kvm/kvm-ia64.c
@@ -925,6 +925,7 @@ long kvm_arch_vm_ioctl(struct file *filp,
goto out;
}
11 matches
Mail list logo
