On Tue, 12 Nov 2019, 11:45 Peng Fan, <peng....@nxp.com> wrote: > Hi Julien, > > Inline marked with [Peng Fan] > > From: Julien Grall <julien.grall....@gmail.com> > Sent: 2019年11月9日 6:44 > To: Stefano Stabellini <sstabell...@kernel.org>; Andre Przywara < > andre.przyw...@arm.com> > Cc: Peng Fan <peng....@nxp.com>; Jürgen Groß <jgr...@suse.com>; > julien.gr...@arm.com; xen-de...@lists.xen.org > Subject: Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH] arch: arm: vgic-v3: fix GICD_ISACTIVER > range > > Hi, > > Sorry for the formatting. > On Sat, 9 Nov 2019, 04:27 Stefano Stabellini, <mailto: > sstabell...@kernel.org> wrote: > On Thu, 7 Nov 2019, Peng Fan wrote: > > The end should be GICD_ISACTIVERN not GICD_ISACTIVER. > > > > Signed-off-by: Peng Fan <mailto:peng....@nxp.com> > > Reviewed-by: Stefano Stabellini <mailto:sstabell...@kernel.org> > > To be honest, I am not sure the code is correct. A read to those registers > should tell you the list of interrupts active. As we always return 0, this > will not return the correct state of the GIC. > > I know that returning the list of actives interrupts is complicated with > the old vGIC, but I don't think silently ignoring it is a good idea. > > The question here is why the guest accessed those registers? What is it > trying to figure out? > > [Peng Fan] I am running Linux 5.4 kernel dom0, gic_peek_irq triggers abort. >
Do you have a call stack trace for this? Cheers,
_______________________________________________ Xen-devel mailing list Xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org https://lists.xenproject.org/mailman/listinfo/xen-devel
