; jasow...@redhat.com
> Subject: Re: [PATCH 02/10] Drivers: hv: utils: run polling callback always in
> interrupt context
>
> On Fri, Oct 09, Olaf Hering wrote:
>
> > On Thu, Oct 08, KY Srinivasan wrote:
> >
> > > > yes, but after doing fcopy_respond_to_host().
On Fri, Oct 09, Olaf Hering wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 08, KY Srinivasan wrote:
>
> > > yes, but after doing fcopy_respond_to_host(). I'd suggest we leave the
> > > check in place, better safe than sorry.
> >
> > Agreed; Olaf, if it is ok with you, I can fix it up and send.
>
> I will retest with thi
; jasow...@redhat.com
> Subject: Re: [PATCH 02/10] Drivers: hv: utils: run polling callback always in
> interrupt context
>
> On Fri, Oct 09, Vitaly Kuznetsov wrote:
>
> > Olaf Hering writes:
> >
> > > On Thu, Oct 08, KY Srinivasan wrote:
> > >
> >
On Fri, Oct 09, Vitaly Kuznetsov wrote:
> Olaf Hering writes:
>
> > On Thu, Oct 08, KY Srinivasan wrote:
> >
> >> > yes, but after doing fcopy_respond_to_host(). I'd suggest we leave the
> >> > check in place, better safe than sorry.
> >>
> >> Agreed; Olaf, if it is ok with you, I can fix it up
Olaf Hering writes:
> On Thu, Oct 08, KY Srinivasan wrote:
>
>> > yes, but after doing fcopy_respond_to_host(). I'd suggest we leave the
>> > check in place, better safe than sorry.
>>
>> Agreed; Olaf, if it is ok with you, I can fix it up and send.
>
> I will retest with this part reverted. I t
On Thu, Oct 08, KY Srinivasan wrote:
> > yes, but after doing fcopy_respond_to_host(). I'd suggest we leave the
> > check in place, better safe than sorry.
>
> Agreed; Olaf, if it is ok with you, I can fix it up and send.
I will retest with this part reverted. I think without two code paths
ente
nical.com;
> jasow...@redhat.com
> Subject: Re: [PATCH 02/10] Drivers: hv: utils: run polling callback always in
> interrupt context
>
> Olaf Hering writes:
>
> > On Thu, Oct 08, Vitaly Kuznetsov wrote:
> >
> >> > @@ -295,9 +288,6 @@ static int fcopy_on_msg(voi
Olaf Hering writes:
> On Thu, Oct 08, Vitaly Kuznetsov wrote:
>
>> > @@ -295,9 +288,6 @@ static int fcopy_on_msg(void *msg, int len)
>> >if (fcopy_transaction.state == HVUTIL_DEVICE_INIT)
>> >return fcopy_handle_handshake(*val);
>> >
>> > - if (fcopy_transaction.state != HVUTIL_U
On Thu, Oct 08, Vitaly Kuznetsov wrote:
> > @@ -295,9 +288,6 @@ static int fcopy_on_msg(void *msg, int len)
> > if (fcopy_transaction.state == HVUTIL_DEVICE_INIT)
> > return fcopy_handle_handshake(*val);
> >
> > - if (fcopy_transaction.state != HVUTIL_USERSPACE_REQ)
> > -
"K. Y. Srinivasan" writes:
> From: Olaf Hering
>
> All channel interrupts are bound to specific VCPUs in the guest
> at the point channel is created. While currently, we invoke the
> polling function on the correct CPU (the CPU to which the channel
> is bound to) in some cases we may run the pol
From: Olaf Hering
All channel interrupts are bound to specific VCPUs in the guest
at the point channel is created. While currently, we invoke the
polling function on the correct CPU (the CPU to which the channel
is bound to) in some cases we may run the polling function in
a non-interrupt context
11 matches
Mail list logo