Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH 2/6] xen/MSI-X: drive maskall and enable bits through hypercalls

["Jan Beulich" <JBeulich@xxxxxxxx>]

>>> On 16.06.15 at 16:56, <stefano.stabellini@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On Tue, 16 Jun 2015, Jan Beulich wrote:
>> >>> On 16.06.15 at 16:03, <stefano.stabellini@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> > On Fri, 5 Jun 2015, Jan Beulich wrote:
>> >> --- a/qemu/upstream/hw/xen/xen_pt_msi.c
>> >> +++ b/qemu/upstream/hw/xen/xen_pt_msi.c
>> >> @@ -301,8 +301,11 @@ static int msix_set_enable(XenPCIPassthr
>> >>          return -1;
>> >>      }
>> >>  
>> >> -    return msi_msix_enable(s, s->msix->ctrl_offset, 
>> >> PCI_MSIX_FLAGS_ENABLE,
>> >> -                           enabled);
>> > 
>> > Would it make sense to remove msi_msix_enable completely to avoid any
>> > further mistakes?
>> 
>> Perhaps, yes. I think I actually had suggested so quite a while back.
>> But I don't see myself wasting much more time on this, ehm, code.
> 
> Isn't it just a matter of removing msi_msix_enable?

It has another caller xen_pt_msi_set_enable(). If we went down
the route of what this patch does, then MSI's enable bit should
ultimately also be driven through a hypercall, and that would then
be the point where the function would naturally disappear. But as
said, it looks like we're intending to go a different route anyway.

Jan


_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.xen.org/xen-devel