On Fri, 17 Apr 2020, Julien Grall wrote: > Hi Bertrand, > > On 17/04/2020 16:16, Bertrand Marquis wrote: > > It seems that the problem is a bit bigger then expected and will need more > > discussion and thinking. > > I did some research on my side and there are several design possible > > depending on what should be the goal performance or real-time behaviour > > (going from just give the status we have to fire a service interrupts when > > any interrupts is acked by a guest to refresh our internal status). > > > > In the short term, could we not agree to fix the typo by returning always 0 > > and start a discussion on the vgic implementation ? > > I have already pointed out multiple time now ([1], [2]) that I would not > oppose the temporary solution. I think this is a matter of someone (Stefano?) > to submit it :). > > Cheers, > > [1] https://lists.xenproject.org/archives/html/xen-devel/2019-11/msg01642.html > [2] https://lists.xenproject.org/archives/html/xen-devel/2020-04/msg00459.html
I can submit it. Julien, would you prefer the plain always return 0 patch, or would you prefer if I tried to get the latest ISACTIVER information (like this patch does) but only for the local processor?
