On Sat, Jan 22, 2011 at 03:40:34PM +0100, Aurelien Jarno wrote:
> On Sat, Jan 22, 2011 at 03:32:36PM +0100, Alexander Graf wrote:
> >
> > On 22.01.2011, at 15:14, Edgar E. Iglesias wrote:
> >
> > > On Sat, Jan 22, 2011 at 02:13:03PM +0100, Aurelien Jarno wrote:
> > >> On Tue, Jan 18, 2011 at 01:5
On Sat, Jan 22, 2011 at 03:32:36PM +0100, Alexander Graf wrote:
>
> On 22.01.2011, at 15:14, Edgar E. Iglesias wrote:
>
> > On Sat, Jan 22, 2011 at 02:13:03PM +0100, Aurelien Jarno wrote:
> >> On Tue, Jan 18, 2011 at 01:58:25PM +0100, Jan Kiszka wrote:
> >>> On 2011-01-18 13:05, Alexander Graf wr
On Sat, Jan 22, 2011 at 03:28:06PM +0100, Alexander Graf wrote:
>
> On 22.01.2011, at 14:13, Aurelien Jarno wrote:
>
> > On Tue, Jan 18, 2011 at 01:58:25PM +0100, Jan Kiszka wrote:
> >> On 2011-01-18 13:05, Alexander Graf wrote:
> >>>
> >>> On 18.01.2011, at 10:08, Gerd Hoffmann wrote:
> >>>
>
On 22.01.2011, at 15:14, Edgar E. Iglesias wrote:
> On Sat, Jan 22, 2011 at 02:13:03PM +0100, Aurelien Jarno wrote:
>> On Tue, Jan 18, 2011 at 01:58:25PM +0100, Jan Kiszka wrote:
>>> On 2011-01-18 13:05, Alexander Graf wrote:
On 18.01.2011, at 10:08, Gerd Hoffmann wrote:
> Hi
On 22.01.2011, at 14:13, Aurelien Jarno wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 18, 2011 at 01:58:25PM +0100, Jan Kiszka wrote:
>> On 2011-01-18 13:05, Alexander Graf wrote:
>>>
>>> On 18.01.2011, at 10:08, Gerd Hoffmann wrote:
>>>
Hi,
>> Worse might also be that unknown issue that force you to inj
On Sat, Jan 22, 2011 at 02:13:03PM +0100, Aurelien Jarno wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 18, 2011 at 01:58:25PM +0100, Jan Kiszka wrote:
> > On 2011-01-18 13:05, Alexander Graf wrote:
> > >
> > > On 18.01.2011, at 10:08, Gerd Hoffmann wrote:
> > >
> > >> Hi,
> > >>
> > Worse might also be that unknown
On Tue, Jan 18, 2011 at 01:58:25PM +0100, Jan Kiszka wrote:
> On 2011-01-18 13:05, Alexander Graf wrote:
> >
> > On 18.01.2011, at 10:08, Gerd Hoffmann wrote:
> >
> >> Hi,
> >>
> Worse might also be that unknown issue that force you to inject an IRQ
> here. We don't know. That's probab
Hi,
edge triggered interrupts wouldn't though.
The code change doesn't change anything for edge triggered
interrupts
- they work fine. Only !msi (== level) ones are broken.
apic irqs can be both edge and level triggered too ...
That re-trigger smells like you are not clearing the interru
On 2011-01-18 13:05, Alexander Graf wrote:
>
> On 18.01.2011, at 10:08, Gerd Hoffmann wrote:
>
>> Hi,
>>
Worse might also be that unknown issue that force you to inject an IRQ
here. We don't know. That's probably worst.
>>>
>>> Well, IIRC the issue was that usually a level high interru
On 18.01.2011, at 10:08, Gerd Hoffmann wrote:
> Hi,
>
>>> Worse might also be that unknown issue that force you to inject an IRQ
>>> here. We don't know. That's probably worst.
>>
>> Well, IIRC the issue was that usually a level high interrupt line would
>> simply retrigger an interrupt after
Hi,
Worse might also be that unknown issue that force you to inject an IRQ
here. We don't know. That's probably worst.
Well, IIRC the issue was that usually a level high interrupt line would
simply retrigger an interrupt after enabling the interrupt line in the
APIC again.
edge triggered i
Jan Kiszka wrote:
> On 2011-01-17 17:33, Alexander Graf wrote:
>
>> Jan Kiszka wrote:
>>
>>> On 2011-01-17 17:04, Alexander Graf wrote:
>>>
>>>
Jan Kiszka wrote:
> On 2011-01-17 17:00, Alexander Graf wrote:
>
>
>
>>
On 2011-01-17 17:33, Alexander Graf wrote:
> Jan Kiszka wrote:
>> On 2011-01-17 17:04, Alexander Graf wrote:
>>
>>> Jan Kiszka wrote:
>>>
On 2011-01-17 17:00, Alexander Graf wrote:
> Jan Kiszka wrote:
>
>
>> On 2010-12-20 22:13, Alexand
Jan Kiszka wrote:
> On 2011-01-17 17:04, Alexander Graf wrote:
>
>> Jan Kiszka wrote:
>>
>>> On 2011-01-17 17:00, Alexander Graf wrote:
>>>
>>>
Jan Kiszka wrote:
> On 2010-12-20 22:13, Alexander Graf wrote:
>
>
>
>>
On 2011-01-17 17:04, Alexander Graf wrote:
> Jan Kiszka wrote:
>> On 2011-01-17 17:00, Alexander Graf wrote:
>>
>>> Jan Kiszka wrote:
>>>
On 2010-12-20 22:13, Alexander Graf wrote:
> When not using MSI, receiving an interrupt while the interrupt line is
> a
Jan Kiszka wrote:
> On 2011-01-17 17:00, Alexander Graf wrote:
>
>> Jan Kiszka wrote:
>>
>>> On 2010-12-20 22:13, Alexander Graf wrote:
>>>
>>>
When not using MSI, receiving an interrupt while the interrupt line is
active
pulses the interrupt line. Without this, gu
On 2011-01-17 17:00, Alexander Graf wrote:
> Jan Kiszka wrote:
>> On 2010-12-20 22:13, Alexander Graf wrote:
>>
>>> When not using MSI, receiving an interrupt while the interrupt line is
>>> active
>>> pulses the interrupt line. Without this, guests don't realize that a new
>>> interrupt occure
Jan Kiszka wrote:
> On 2010-12-20 22:13, Alexander Graf wrote:
>
>> When not using MSI, receiving an interrupt while the interrupt line is active
>> pulses the interrupt line. Without this, guests don't realize that a new
>> interrupt occured.
>>
>
> This doesn't look OK. The device model s
On 2010-12-20 22:13, Alexander Graf wrote:
> When not using MSI, receiving an interrupt while the interrupt line is active
> pulses the interrupt line. Without this, guests don't realize that a new
> interrupt occured.
This doesn't look OK. The device model should look at the currently used
mode a
19 matches
Mail list logo
