On 07/15/2013 10:47 AM, Benjamin Herrenschmidt wrote:
On Mon, 2013-07-15 at 10:20 +0800, tiejun.chen wrote:
What about SOFT_IRQ_DISABLE? This is close to name
hard_irq_disable() :) And
then remove all DISABLE_INTS as well?
Or RECONCILE_IRQ_STATE...
But sounds this doesn't imply this key poin
On 07/14/2013 12:13 PM, Benjamin Herrenschmidt wrote:
On Fri, 2013-07-12 at 12:54 +0800, tiejun.chen wrote:
Is the following fine?
powerpc: to access local paca after hard irq disabled
We can access paca directly after hard interrupt disabled, and
this can avoid accessing wrong paca when using
On Mon, 2013-07-15 at 10:20 +0800, tiejun.chen wrote:
> What about SOFT_IRQ_DISABLE? This is close to name
> hard_irq_disable() :) And
> then remove all DISABLE_INTS as well?
Or RECONCILE_IRQ_STATE...
Ben.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe kvm-ppc" in
the body of a m
We can access paca directly after hard interrupt disabled, and
this can avoid accessing wrong paca when using get_paca() in
preempt case.
Signed-off-by: Tiejun Chen
---
arch/powerpc/include/asm/hw_irq.h |7 ---
1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
diff --git a/arch/powerpc/in
On 07/13/2013 01:50 AM, Scott Wood wrote:
On 07/11/2013 10:22:28 PM, tiejun.chen wrote:
If so, why not to remove directly hard_irq_disable() inside
kvmppc_handle_exit() by reverting that commit, "kvm/ppc/booke64: Fix lazy ee
handling in kvmppc_handle_exit()"?
Then we can use SOFT_DISABLE_INTS()
On 07/13/2013 07:05 AM, Benjamin Herrenschmidt wrote:
On Fri, 2013-07-12 at 12:50 -0500, Scott Wood wrote:
[1] SOFT_DISABLE_INTS seems an odd name for something that updates the
software state to be consistent with interrupts being *hard* disabled.
I can sort of see the logic in it, but it's co
