qemu-devel
[Top][All Lists]
Advanced

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH 7/7] ahci: work around bug with level interrupts


From: Aurelien Jarno
Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH 7/7] ahci: work around bug with level interrupts
Date: Tue, 1 Feb 2011 18:06:14 +0100
User-agent: Mutt/1.5.18 (2008-05-17)

On Tue, Feb 01, 2011 at 05:53:43PM +0100, Alexander Graf wrote:
> 
> On 01.02.2011, at 17:34, Aurelien Jarno wrote:
> 
> > On Tue, Feb 01, 2011 at 03:51:32PM +0100, Alexander Graf wrote:
> >> When using level based interrupts, the interrupt is treated the same as an
> >> edge triggered one: leaving the line up does not retrigger the interrupt.
> >> 
> >> In fact, when not lowering the line, we won't ever get a new interrupt 
> >> inside
> >> the guest. So let's always retrigger an interrupt as soon as the OS ack'ed
> >> something on the device. This way we're sure the guest doesn't starve on
> >> interrupts until someone fixes the actual interrupt path.
> > 
> > Given this issue mostly concerns x86 and not other architectures where
> > the SATA emulation can probably be used, what about putting the two
> > versions of the codes like in i8259.c:
> > 
> > | * all targets should do this rather than acking the IRQ in the cpu */
> > | #if defined(TARGET_MIPS) || defined(TARGET_PPC) || defined(TARGET_ALPHA)
> > 
> > The list of architectures here is reduced given the few architectures 
> > that actually use the i8259, so for ahci.c it should probably be #if not
> > defined(TARGET_I386) instead.
> 
> Because then we'd have to build the ahci code conditionally on the 
> architecture. Right now it builds into libhw :)

If we want to keep it in libhw, it's probably better to disable it on
other architectures than i386.

-- 
Aurelien Jarno                          GPG: 1024D/F1BCDB73
address@hidden                 http://www.aurel32.net



reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]