On 12/11/2014 06:44 AM, Jan Beulich wrote:
On 10.12.14 at 10:53, wrote:
On Wed, 2014-12-10 at 08:07 +, Jan Beulich wrote:
--- a/xen/common/domctl.c
+++ b/xen/common/domctl.c
@@ -981,18 +981,18 @@ long do_domctl(XEN_GUEST_HANDLE_PARAM(xe
case XEN_DOMCTL_irq_permission:
{
-
>>> On 10.12.14 at 10:53, wrote:
> On Wed, 2014-12-10 at 08:07 +, Jan Beulich wrote:
>> --- a/xen/common/domctl.c
>> +++ b/xen/common/domctl.c
>> @@ -981,18 +981,18 @@ long do_domctl(XEN_GUEST_HANDLE_PARAM(xe
>>
>> case XEN_DOMCTL_irq_permission:
>> {
>> -unsigned int pirq
>>> On 10.12.14 at 11:19, wrote:
> Hi Jan,
>
> On 10/12/2014 08:07, Jan Beulich wrote:
>> Commit 545607eb3c ("x86: fix various issues with handling guest IRQs")
>> wasn't really consistent in one respect: The granting of access to an
>> IRQ shouldn't assume the pIRQ->IRQ translation to be the sam
Hi Jan,
On 10/12/2014 08:07, Jan Beulich wrote:
Commit 545607eb3c ("x86: fix various issues with handling guest IRQs")
wasn't really consistent in one respect: The granting of access to an
IRQ shouldn't assume the pIRQ->IRQ translation to be the same in both
domains. In fact it is wrong to assum
On Wed, 2014-12-10 at 10:00 +, Jan Beulich wrote:
> >>> On 10.12.14 at 10:53, wrote:
> > On Wed, 2014-12-10 at 08:07 +, Jan Beulich wrote:
> >> Commit 545607eb3c ("x86: fix various issues with handling guest IRQs")
> >> wasn't really consistent in one respect: The granting of access to an
>>> On 10.12.14 at 10:53, wrote:
> On Wed, 2014-12-10 at 08:07 +, Jan Beulich wrote:
>> Commit 545607eb3c ("x86: fix various issues with handling guest IRQs")
>> wasn't really consistent in one respect: The granting of access to an
>> IRQ shouldn't assume the pIRQ->IRQ translation to be the sa
On Wed, 2014-12-10 at 08:07 +, Jan Beulich wrote:
> Commit 545607eb3c ("x86: fix various issues with handling guest IRQs")
> wasn't really consistent in one respect: The granting of access to an
> IRQ shouldn't assume the pIRQ->IRQ translation to be the same in both
> domains. In fact it is wro
Commit 545607eb3c ("x86: fix various issues with handling guest IRQs")
wasn't really consistent in one respect: The granting of access to an
IRQ shouldn't assume the pIRQ->IRQ translation to be the same in both
domains. In fact it is wrong to assume that a translation is already/
still in place at
