On 04/04/2017 19:42, Christoffer Dall wrote:
>
> this is not going to be called when we don't have the vgic, which means
> that if vcpu_interrupt_line() is used as you modify it above, the
> request will never get cleared.
Heh, I'll stop pretending I can give positive reviews of ARM patches
On 31/03/2017 18:06, Andrew Jones wrote:
> Don't use request-less VCPU kicks when injecting IRQs, as a VCPU
> kick meant to trigger the interrupt injection could be sent while
> the VCPU is outside guest mode, which means no IPI is sent, and
> after it has called kvm_vgic_flush_hwstate(),
On Tue, Apr 04, 2017 at 07:42:08PM +0200, Christoffer Dall wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 31, 2017 at 06:06:55PM +0200, Andrew Jones wrote:
> > Don't use request-less VCPU kicks when injecting IRQs, as a VCPU
> > kick meant to trigger the interrupt injection could be sent while
> > the VCPU is outside guest
On Fri, Mar 31, 2017 at 06:06:55PM +0200, Andrew Jones wrote:
> Don't use request-less VCPU kicks when injecting IRQs, as a VCPU
> kick meant to trigger the interrupt injection could be sent while
> the VCPU is outside guest mode, which means no IPI is sent, and
> after it has called
Don't use request-less VCPU kicks when injecting IRQs, as a VCPU
kick meant to trigger the interrupt injection could be sent while
the VCPU is outside guest mode, which means no IPI is sent, and
after it has called kvm_vgic_flush_hwstate(), meaning it won't see
the updated GIC state until its next
