[PATCH] iommu/arm-smmu: Only return IRQ_NONE if FSR is not set

2015-09-25 Thread Mitchel Humpherys
Currently we return IRQ_NONE from the context fault handler if the FSR doesn't actually have the fault bit set (some sort of miswired interrupt?) or if the client doesn't register an IOMMU fault handler. However, registering a client fault handler is optional, so telling the interrupt framework tha

Re: [PATCH V4 1/2] ACPI / EC: Fix broken 64bit big-endian users of 'global_lock'

2015-09-25 Thread Rafael J. Wysocki
On Fri, Sep 25, 2015 at 11:44 PM, Viresh Kumar wrote: > On 25-09-15, 22:58, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: >> Say you have three adjacent fields in a structure, x, y, z, each one byte >> long. >> Initially, all of them are equal to 0. >> >> CPU A writes 1 to x and CPU B writes 2 to y at the same time.

Re: [PATCH V4 1/2] ACPI / EC: Fix broken 64bit big-endian users of 'global_lock'

2015-09-25 Thread Viresh Kumar
On 25-09-15, 22:58, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: > Say you have three adjacent fields in a structure, x, y, z, each one byte > long. > Initially, all of them are equal to 0. > > CPU A writes 1 to x and CPU B writes 2 to y at the same time. > > What's the result? But then two CPUs can update the sam

Re: [PATCH V4 1/2] ACPI / EC: Fix broken 64bit big-endian users of 'global_lock'

2015-09-25 Thread Rafael J. Wysocki
On Friday, September 25, 2015 01:25:49 PM Viresh Kumar wrote: > On 25 September 2015 at 13:33, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: > > You're going to change that into bool in the next patch, right? > > Yeah. > > > So what if bool is a byte and the field is not word-aligned > > Its between two 'unsigned l

Re: [PATCH V4 1/2] ACPI / EC: Fix broken 64bit big-endian users of 'global_lock'

2015-09-25 Thread Viresh Kumar
On 25 September 2015 at 13:33, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: > You're going to change that into bool in the next patch, right? Yeah. > So what if bool is a byte and the field is not word-aligned Its between two 'unsigned long' variables today, and the struct isn't packed. So, it will be aligned, isn

Re: [PATCH V4 1/2] ACPI / EC: Fix broken 64bit big-endian users of 'global_lock'

2015-09-25 Thread Rafael J. Wysocki
On Friday, September 25, 2015 10:26:22 PM Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: > On Friday, September 25, 2015 11:52:56 AM Viresh Kumar wrote: > > On 25-09-15, 20:49, Johannes Berg wrote: > > > Ok, then, but that means Rafael is completely wrong ... > > > debugfs_create_bool() takes a *pointer* and it needs to

Re: [PATCH V4 1/2] ACPI / EC: Fix broken 64bit big-endian users of 'global_lock'

2015-09-25 Thread Rafael J. Wysocki
On Friday, September 25, 2015 11:52:56 AM Viresh Kumar wrote: > On 25-09-15, 20:49, Johannes Berg wrote: > > Ok, then, but that means Rafael is completely wrong ... > > debugfs_create_bool() takes a *pointer* and it needs to be long-lived, > > it can't be on the stack. You also don't get a call whe

Re: [PATCH V4 1/2] ACPI / EC: Fix broken 64bit big-endian users of 'global_lock'

2015-09-25 Thread Rafael J. Wysocki
On Friday, September 25, 2015 10:18:13 PM Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: > On Friday, September 25, 2015 09:41:37 AM Viresh Kumar wrote: > > global_lock is defined as an unsigned long and accessing only its lower > > 32 bits from sysfs is incorrect, as we need to consider other 32 bits > > for big endian

Re: [PATCH V4 1/2] ACPI / EC: Fix broken 64bit big-endian users of 'global_lock'

2015-09-25 Thread Rafael J. Wysocki
On Friday, September 25, 2015 09:41:37 AM Viresh Kumar wrote: > global_lock is defined as an unsigned long and accessing only its lower > 32 bits from sysfs is incorrect, as we need to consider other 32 bits > for big endian 64 bit systems. There are no such platforms yet, but the > code needs to b

Re: [PATCH V4 1/2] ACPI / EC: Fix broken 64bit big-endian users of 'global_lock'

2015-09-25 Thread Viresh Kumar
On 25-09-15, 20:49, Johannes Berg wrote: > Ok, then, but that means Rafael is completely wrong ... > debugfs_create_bool() takes a *pointer* and it needs to be long-lived, > it can't be on the stack. You also don't get a call when it changes. Ahh, ofcourse. My bad as well... I think we can change

Re: [PATCH V4 1/2] ACPI / EC: Fix broken 64bit big-endian users of 'global_lock'

2015-09-25 Thread Johannes Berg
> Rafael wrote: > > Actually, what about adding a local u32 variable, say val, here and > > doing > > > > > if (!debugfs_create_x32("gpe", 0444, dev_dir, (u32 > > > *)&first_ec->gpe)) > > > goto error; > > > if (!debugfs_create_bool("use_global_lock", 0444, > > > dev_dir, > > > -

Re: [PATCH V4 1/2] ACPI / EC: Fix broken 64bit big-endian users of 'global_lock'

2015-09-25 Thread Viresh Kumar
On 25-09-15, 19:42, Johannes Berg wrote: > On Fri, 2015-09-25 at 09:41 -0700, Viresh Kumar wrote: > > > Signed-off-by: Viresh Kumar > > --- > > V3->V4: > > - Create a local variable instead of changing type of global_lock > > (Rafael) > > Err, surely that wasn't what Rafael meant, since it's c

Re: [PATCH V4 1/2] ACPI / EC: Fix broken 64bit big-endian users of 'global_lock'

2015-09-25 Thread Johannes Berg
On Fri, 2015-09-25 at 09:41 -0700, Viresh Kumar wrote: > Signed-off-by: Viresh Kumar > --- > V3->V4: > - Create a local variable instead of changing type of global_lock > (Rafael) Err, surely that wasn't what Rafael meant, since it's clearly impossible to use a pointer to the stack, assign to

[PATCH V4 2/2] debugfs: Pass bool pointer to debugfs_create_bool()

2015-09-25 Thread Viresh Kumar
Its a bit odd that debugfs_create_bool() takes 'u32 *' as an argument, when all it needs is a boolean pointer. It would be better to update this API to make it accept 'bool *' instead, as that will make it more consistent and often more convenient. Over that bool takes just a byte (mostly). That

[PATCH V4 1/2] ACPI / EC: Fix broken 64bit big-endian users of 'global_lock'

2015-09-25 Thread Viresh Kumar
global_lock is defined as an unsigned long and accessing only its lower 32 bits from sysfs is incorrect, as we need to consider other 32 bits for big endian 64 bit systems. There are no such platforms yet, but the code needs to be robust for such a case. Fix that by passing a local variable to deb

Re: [PATCH v9 00/18] Add VT-d Posted-Interrupts support - including prerequisite series

2015-09-25 Thread Paolo Bonzini
On 25/09/2015 03:49, Wu, Feng wrote: > Hi Paolo, > > Thanks for your review on this series! I'd like to confirm this series (plus > the patch fixing the compilation error) is okay to you and I don't need to > do extra things for it, right? Yes, can you check if branch vtd-pi of git://git.kernel