>>> "Dong, Eddie" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 06/05/07 10:20 AM >>>
>
> If a guest OS *did* enable both PIC & APIC for a irq, both in
> the simplified
> approach (Xen) and V09 has same effect: exitirq get the
> priority and get
> injected. (BTW SDM doesn't explicitly say which one has priority).
>
I thin
ving an INTA
> cycle, even though we software guys only explicitly see the
> INTA cycle on the 8259. But im sure there is something that
> closely resembles an INTA to the LAPIC buried inside the
> silicon so I think this analogy works.
>
>>>> "Dong, Eddie" &l
ng, Eddie" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 06/04/07 8:21 PM >>>
>
>
>> -Original Message-
>> From: Gregory Haskins [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>> Sent: 2007年6月5日 1:23
>> To: Dong, Eddie; kvm-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
>> Subject: RE: [kvm-devel]
con so I think this analogy works.
>>> "Dong, Eddie" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 06/04/07 8:21 PM >>>
>-Original Message-
>From: Gregory Haskins [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>Sent: 2007年6月5日 1:23
>To: Dong, Eddie; kvm-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
>
H 3/9] KVM: Add irqdevice object
>
>
>
>>-Original Message-
>>From: Gregory Haskins [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>>Sent: 2007年6月5日 1:23
>>To: Dong, Eddie; kvm-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
>>Subject: RE: [kvm-devel] [PATCH 3/9] KVM: Add irqdevice ob
>-Original Message-
>From: Gregory Haskins [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>Sent: 2007年6月5日 1:23
>To: Dong, Eddie; kvm-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
>Subject: RE: [kvm-devel] [PATCH 3/9] KVM: Add irqdevice object
>
>>>> "Dong, Eddie" <[EMAIL PROTECTED
>>> "Dong, Eddie" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 06/04/07 3:13 AM >>>
>Greg:
> Can you explain a bit why we need to distinguish
> kvm_irqpin_extint from kvm_irqpin_localint?
They are both "vectored interrupts", but localint means "I have the vector" and
extint means "someone else has the vector". The
Greg:
Can you explain a bit why we need to distinguish
kvm_irqpin_extint from kvm_irqpin_localint? I am not in previous thread
for this. I saw latest V09 has hole here such as handle_exception due to
IRQ inject fail. I.e. IDT_VECTORING_INFO_FIELD only push localint back,
but no extint.
The current code is geared towards using a user-mode (A)PIC. This patch adds
an "irqdevice" abstraction, and implements a "userint" model to handle the
duties of the original code. Later, we can develop other irqdevice models
to handle objects like LAPIC, IOAPIC, i8259, etc, as appropriate
Signe
The current code is geared towards using a user-mode (A)PIC. This patch adds
an "irqdevice" abstraction, and implements a "userint" model to handle the
duties of the original code. Later, we can develop other irqdevice models
to handle objects like LAPIC, IOAPIC, i8259, etc, as appropriate
Signe
The current code is geared towards using a user-mode (A)PIC. This patch adds
an "irqdevice" abstraction, and implements a "userint" model to handle the
duties of the original code. Later, we can develop other irqdevice models
to handle objects like LAPIC, IOAPIC, i8259, etc, as appropriate
Signe
The current code is geared towards using a user-mode (A)PIC. This patch adds
an "irqdevice" abstraction, and implements a "userint" model to handle the
duties of the original code. Later, we can develop other irqdevice models
to handle objects like LAPIC, IOAPIC, i8259, etc, as appropriate
Signe
The current code is geared towards using a user-mode (A)PIC. This patch adds
an "irqdevice" abstraction, and implements a "userint" model to handle the
duties of the original code. Later, we can develop other irqdevice models
to handle objects like LAPIC, IOAPIC, i8259, etc, as appropriate
Signe
The current code is geared towards using a user-mode (A)PIC. This patch adds
an "irqdevice" abstraction, and implements a "userint" model to handle the
duties of the original code. Later, we can develop other irqdevice models
to handle objects like LAPIC, IOAPIC, i8259, etc, as appropriate
Signe
14 matches
Mail list logo
