Hi Andrew, On 12/11/2018 16:16, Andrew Cooper wrote:
The ARM code has a chicken-and-egg problem. One of the vGIC_v3 emulations
NIT: s/vGIC_v3/vGICv3/
diff --git a/xen/arch/arm/vgic.c b/xen/arch/arm/vgic.c index 5a4f082..892445e 100644 --- a/xen/arch/arm/vgic.c +++ b/xen/arch/arm/vgic.c @@ -667,9 +667,27 @@ void vgic_free_virq(struct domain *d, unsigned int virq) clear_bit(virq, d->arch.vgic.allocated_irqs); }-unsigned int vgic_max_vcpus(const struct domain *d)+unsigned int vgic_max_vcpus(unsigned int domctl_vgic_version) { - return min_t(unsigned int, MAX_VIRT_CPUS, d->arch.vgic.handler->max_vcpus); + unsigned int max_vcpus; + + switch ( domctl_vgic_version ) + { + case XEN_DOMCTL_CONFIG_GIC_V2: + max_vcpus = 8; + break; + +#ifdef CONFIG_GICV3 + case XEN_DOMCTL_CONFIG_GIC_V3: + max_vcpus = 4092;
The previous case was using 4096. Also, can you move the comment to keep the rationale for the number?
+ break; +#endif + + default: + return 0; + } + + return min_t(unsigned int, MAX_VIRT_CPUS, max_vcpus);
How about moving this check in the common code? Cheers, -- Julien Grall _______________________________________________ Xen-devel mailing list Xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org https://lists.xenproject.org/mailman/listinfo/xen-devel
