On 04/28/2016 10:45 AM, Andre Przywara wrote:

...

+void vgic_mmio_write_sactive(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu,
+			     gpa_t addr, unsigned int len,
+			     unsigned long val)

...

+		spin_lock(&vcpu->arch.vgic_cpu.ap_list_lock);
+		spin_lock(&irq->irq_lock);

If using the suggested higher level function from patch 14 this could be:
                 vgic_lock_aplist_irq(&vcpu->arch.vgic_cpu.ap_list_lock, &irq->irq_lock);

+
+		/*
+		 * Recheck after dropping the IRQ lock to see if we should
+		 * still care about queueing it.
+		 */
+		if (irq->active || irq->vcpu) {
+			irq->active = true;
+
+			spin_unlock(&irq->irq_lock);
+			spin_unlock(&vcpu->arch.vgic_cpu.ap_list_lock);

And this could be:
                         vgic_unlock_aplist_irq(&vcpu->arch.vgic_cpu.ap_list_lock, &irq->irq_lock);

+
+			continue;
+		}
+
+		/* Did the target VCPU change while we had the lock dropped? */
+		if (vcpu != irq->target_vcpu) {
+			spin_unlock(&irq->irq_lock);
+			spin_unlock(&vcpu->arch.vgic_cpu.ap_list_lock);

And this could be:
                          vgic_unlock_aplist_irq(&vcpu->arch.vgic_cpu.ap_list_lock, &irq->irq_lock);

+
+			goto retry;
+		}
+
+		/* Now queue the IRQ to the VCPU's ap_list. */
+		list_add_tail(&irq->ap_list, &vcpu->arch.vgic_cpu.ap_list_head);
+		irq->vcpu = vcpu;
+
+		irq->active = true;
+
+		spin_unlock(&irq->irq_lock);
+		spin_unlock(&vcpu->arch.vgic_cpu.ap_list_lock);

And this could be:
                 vgic_unlock_aplist_irq(&vcpu->arch.vgic_cpu.ap_list_lock, &irq->irq_lock);

+
+		kvm_vcpu_kick(vcpu);
+	}
+}
+