Hi Julien,
On Fri, Mar 20, 2015 at 10:14 PM, Julien Grall <julien.gr...@linaro.org> wrote:
> Hello Vijay,
>
> On 19/03/2015 14:37, vijay.kil...@gmail.com wrote:
>>
>> diff --git a/xen/include/asm-arm/irq.h b/xen/include/asm-arm/irq.h
>> index 435dfcd..f091739 100644
>> --- a/xen/include/asm-arm/irq.h
>> +++ b/xen/include/asm-arm/irq.h
>> @@ -17,6 +17,8 @@ struct arch_pirq
>> struct arch_irq_desc {
>> int eoi_cpu;
>> unsigned int type;
>> + unsigned int virq;
>> + struct its_device *dev;
>> };
>
>
> It seems you again miss my comment... As said on v1 this is not the
> solution. You add data for any IRQ (around 16K in Xen) just for handling
> LPIs.
>
> I provided a patch to handle virq != irq [1] and we should use it in order
> to diverge handling between LPIs and SPIs.
>
> If you are not happy with it, please see why.
>
Stefano suggested to use arch_irq_desc to hold virq and its_device structure.
Another question is why another structure irq_guest is created?. Can't we reuse
arch_irq_desc?
Is this patch merged?.
> Regards,
>
> [1] https://patches.linaro.org/43012/
>
> --
> Julien Grall
_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@lists.xen.org
http://lists.xen.org/xen-devel
