On Tue, Sep 29, 2020 at 12:58:20PM +0200, Jan Beulich wrote: > On 29.09.2020 12:27, Roger Pau Monné wrote: > > On Mon, Sep 21, 2020 at 12:05:51PM +0200, Jan Beulich wrote: > >> On 21.08.2020 09:45, Jan Beulich wrote: > >>> On 20.08.2020 18:28, Andrew Cooper wrote: > >>>> On 20/08/2020 16:34, Roger Pau Monne wrote: > >>>>> Currently the dpci EOI callback is only executed for specific EOIs. > >>>>> This is wrong as non-specific EOIs will also clear the ISR bit and > >>>>> thus end the interrupt. Re-arrange the code a bit so that the common > >>>>> EOI handling path can be shared between all EOI modes. > >>>>> > >>>>> Signed-off-by: Roger Pau Monné <roger....@citrix.com> > >>>>> --- > >>>>> xen/arch/x86/hvm/vpic.c | 10 +++++----- > >>>>> 1 file changed, 5 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-) > >>>>> > >>>>> diff --git a/xen/arch/x86/hvm/vpic.c b/xen/arch/x86/hvm/vpic.c > >>>>> index feb1db2ee3..3cf12581e9 100644 > >>>>> --- a/xen/arch/x86/hvm/vpic.c > >>>>> +++ b/xen/arch/x86/hvm/vpic.c > >>>>> @@ -249,15 +249,15 @@ static void vpic_ioport_write( > >>>>> if ( priority == VPIC_PRIO_NONE ) > >>>>> break; > >>>>> pin = (priority + vpic->priority_add) & 7; > >>>>> - vpic->isr &= ~(1 << pin); > >>>>> - if ( cmd == 5 ) > >>>>> - vpic->priority_add = (pin + 1) & 7; > >>>>> - break; > >>>>> + goto common_eoi; > >>>>> + > >>>>> case 3: /* Specific EOI */ > >>>>> case 7: /* Specific EOI & Rotate */ > >>>>> pin = val & 7; > >>>> > >>>> You'll need a /* Fallthrough */ here to keep various things happy. > >>> > >>> Are you sure? There's ... > >>> > >>>> Otherwise, Acked-by: Andrew Cooper <andrew.coop...@citrix.com> > >>>> > >>>> Can fix on commit if you're happy. > >>>> > >>>>> + > >>>>> + common_eoi: > >>> > >>> ... an ordinary label here, not a case one. > >> > >> I would have wanted to commit this, but it's still not clear to me > >> whether the adjustment you ask for is really needed. > > > > Was about to send a further series I have on top of this and saw this > > is still on my patch queue. I'm happy with either way, but I would > > like to get this committed if possible (as I think from a technical > > PoV we all agree it's correct). > > Hmm, did you mean to send this _to_ Andrew, with me on _cc_? There's > nothing I can do without his further input.
Yes, it's fixed now. Please see above Andrew. Roger.
