Hi,
On 06/19/2017 11:44 PM, Stefano Stabellini wrote:
On Mon, 19 Jun 2017, Julien Grall wrote:
Hi,
On 14/06/17 18:55, Julien Grall wrote:
Hi Andre,
On 06/14/2017 05:51 PM, Andre Przywara wrote:
When reading the priority value of a virtual interrupt, we were taking
the respective rank lock s
On Mon, 19 Jun 2017, Julien Grall wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On 14/06/17 18:55, Julien Grall wrote:
> > Hi Andre,
> >
> > On 06/14/2017 05:51 PM, Andre Przywara wrote:
> > > When reading the priority value of a virtual interrupt, we were taking
> > > the respective rank lock so far.
> > > However for forwa
Hi,
On 14/06/17 18:55, Julien Grall wrote:
Hi Andre,
On 06/14/2017 05:51 PM, Andre Przywara wrote:
When reading the priority value of a virtual interrupt, we were taking
the respective rank lock so far.
However for forwarded interrupts (Dom0 only so far) this may lead to a
deadlock with the fo
Hi Andre,
On 06/14/2017 05:51 PM, Andre Przywara wrote:
When reading the priority value of a virtual interrupt, we were taking
the respective rank lock so far.
However for forwarded interrupts (Dom0 only so far) this may lead to a
deadlock with the following call chain:
- MMIO access to change t
When reading the priority value of a virtual interrupt, we were taking
the respective rank lock so far.
However for forwarded interrupts (Dom0 only so far) this may lead to a
deadlock with the following call chain:
- MMIO access to change the IRQ affinity, calling the ITARGETSR handler
- this handl
