Re: [PATCH v5 05/15] KVM: s390: unify pending_irqs() and pending_irqs_no_gisa()

[Halil Pasic]

On Thu, 20 Dec 2018 12:49:56 +0100
Michael Mueller <mimu@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> 
> 
> On 20.12.18 12:06, Cornelia Huck wrote:
> > On Wed, 19 Dec 2018 20:17:46 +0100
> > Michael Mueller <mimu@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > 
> >> Use a single function with parameter irq_flags to differentiate
> >> between cases.
> >>
> >> New irq flag:
> >>     IRQ_FLAG_LOCAL: include vcpu local interruptions pending
> >>     IRQ_FLAG_FLOATING: include vcpu floating interruptions pending
> >>     IRQ_FLAG_GISA: include GISA interruptions pending in IPM
> > 
> > I presume that means that irqs may be in more than one set? Or are gisa
> > irqs not considered floating irqs, because they use a different
> > mechanism?
> 
> Currently, the interruptions managed in GISA are floating only. But
> that might change in future. 

I don't think GISA can be used for non-floating interrupts.

Regards,
Halil

> The idea is not to subsume IRQ_FLAG_GISA
> in IRQ_FLAG_FLOATING but to be able to address the right set of 
> procedures to determine the irq pending set for a given subset of irq
> types that have different implementations.
> 
> There might be a better name for IRQ_FLAG_FLOATING then?
> 

[..]