On Wed, Nov 22, 2017 at 03:22:50PM +0200, Marcel Apfelbaum wrote: > On 22/11/2017 14:32, Ladi Prosek wrote: > > On Wed, Nov 22, 2017 at 11:46 AM, Marcel Apfelbaum <mar...@redhat.com> > > wrote: > > > Hi Ladi, > > > > > > On 20/11/2017 16:22, Ladi Prosek wrote: > > > > > > > > msix_mask_all() is supposed to invoke the release vector notifier if the > > > > state of the > > > > respective vector changed from unmasked or masked. > > > > > > > > > You mean from unmasked "to" masked right? > > > > Yes, that's a typo. > > > > > The way it's currently called from > > > > > > > > msix_reset(), though, may result in calling the release notifier even if > > > > the vector > > > > is already masked. > > > > > > > > 1) msix_reset() clears out the msix_cap field and the msix_table. > > > > 2) msix_mask_all() runs with was_masked=false for all vectors because of > > > > 1), which > > > > results in calling the release notifier on all vectors. > > > > 3) if msix_reset() is subsequently called again, it goes through the > > > > same > > > > steps and > > > > calls the release notifier on all vectors again. > > > > > > > > > > As far as I can see in the code you are right.(very reset will trigger the > > > release notifiers > > > again) > > > > > > > This commit moves msix_mask_all() up so it runs before the device state > > > > is > > > > lost. > > > > > > > > > OK > > > > > > > And > > > > it adds a call to msix_update_function_masked() so that the device > > > > remembers that > > > > MSI-X is masked. > > > > > > > > > > msix_update_function_masked checks the msix is enabled or masked-off. > > > You are building on the fact the msix will not be enabled to set > > > "msix_function_masked" to "true", right? > > > (I just want to be sure I understand the patch) > > > > Correct. msix_enabled() will return false because we've just reset > > > > dev->config[dev->msix_cap + MSIX_CONTROL_OFFSET] > > > > I guess we could also simply assign true to it: > > > > dev->msix_function_masked = true; > > > > just like msix_init() does. > > Yes, is preferable - I think. > If you intend to send V2, please wait first for Alex's remarks if he has any. > > Thanks, > Marcel > > > > > > > This is likely a low impact issue, found while debugging an already > > > > broken > > > > device. It > > > > is however easy to fix and the expectation that the use and release > > > > notifier invocations > > > > are always balanced is very natural. > > > > > > > > > > I would leave it (maybe) out of 2.11 because it may expose other bugs > > > and we are after rc2 already. > > > > > > Adding Alex Williamson to see it does not affect device assignment, > > > other than that the patch looks OK to me. > > > > > > > > > Thanks, > > > Marcel > > > > > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Ladi Prosek <lpro...@redhat.com> > > > > --- > > > > hw/pci/msix.c | 3 ++- > > > > 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-) > > > > > > > > diff --git a/hw/pci/msix.c b/hw/pci/msix.c > > > > index c944c02135..34656de9b0 100644 > > > > --- a/hw/pci/msix.c > > > > +++ b/hw/pci/msix.c > > > > @@ -500,11 +500,12 @@ void msix_reset(PCIDevice *dev) > > > > return; > > > > } > > > > msix_clear_all_vectors(dev); > > > > + msix_mask_all(dev, dev->msix_entries_nr); > > > > dev->config[dev->msix_cap + MSIX_CONTROL_OFFSET] &= > > > > ~dev->wmask[dev->msix_cap + MSIX_CONTROL_OFFSET]; > > > > memset(dev->msix_table, 0, dev->msix_entries_nr * > > > > PCI_MSIX_ENTRY_SIZE); > > > > memset(dev->msix_pba, 0, QEMU_ALIGN_UP(dev->msix_entries_nr, 64) > > > > / > > > > 8); > > > > - msix_mask_all(dev, dev->msix_entries_nr); > > > > + msix_update_function_masked(dev); > > > > } > > > > /* PCI spec suggests that devices make it possible for software to > > > > configure > > > > > > >
Do you intend to post v2 or need Marcel to?
