[RFC PATCH 2/9] genirq: Allow the state of a forwarded irq to be save/restored
From: Will Deacon <hidden>
Date: 2014-06-27 13:10:48
Also in:
lkml
Hi Marc, On Wed, Jun 25, 2014 at 10:28:43AM +0100, Marc Zyngier wrote:
When a peripheral is shared between virtual machines, its interrupt state becomes part of the guest's state, and must be switched accordingly. Introduce a pair of accessors (irq_get_fwd_state/irq_set_fwd_state) to retrieve the bits that can be of interest to KVM: pending, active, and masked. - irq_get_fwd_state returns the state of the interrupt according to a mask containing any of the IRQ_STATE_PENDING, IRQ_STATE_ACTIVE or IRQ_STATE_MASKED bits. - irq_set_fwd_state sets the state of the interrupt according to a similar mask. Only a forwarded interrupt can be manipulated in such a way.
[...]
+/**
+ * irq_set_fwd_state - set the state of a forwarded interrupt.
+ * @irq: Interrupt line that is forwarded to a VM
+ * @val: State to be restored
+ * @mask: Bitmask of IRQ_FWD_STATE_* defining the valid bits in @val
+ *
+ * This call sets the state of a forwarded interrupt, depending
+ * on the mask which indicates the valid bits.
+ *
+ * This function should be called with preemption disabled if the
+ * interrupt controller has per-cpu registers.
+ */
+int irq_set_fwd_state(unsigned int irq, u32 val, u32 mask)
+{
+ struct irq_desc *desc;
+ struct irq_data *data;
+ struct irq_chip *chip;
+ unsigned long flags;
+
+ desc = irq_to_desc(irq);
+ if (!desc)
+ return -EINVAL;
+
+ data = irq_desc_get_irq_data(desc);
+ if (!irqd_irq_forwarded(data))
+ return -EINVAL;
+
+ chip = irq_desc_get_chip(desc);
+ if (!chip->irq_set_fwd_state)
+ return -EINVAL;
+
+ chip_bus_lock(desc);
+ raw_spin_lock_irqsave(&desc->lock, flags);
+ chip->irq_set_fwd_state(data, val, mask);
+ raw_spin_unlock_irqrestore(&desc->lock, flags);
+ chip_bus_sync_unlock(desc);Having looked at this, I don't think you need to take the desc->lock after all. I thought you might need it for irq_desc_get_chip, but that's not going to change dynamically and you'd end up with a lock ordering problem against chip_bus_lock anyway. Will