On March 07, 2016 7:49pm, wrote:
> >>> On 07.03.16 at 12:42, wrote:
> > On March 07, 2016 7:36pm, wrote:
> >> >>> On 07.03.16 at 12:23, wrote:
> >> > On March 07, 2016 7:14pm, wrote:
> >> >> >>> On 07.03.16 at 08:05, wrote:
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >> > A quick question, is it '-ERESTART', instead
>>> On 07.03.16 at 12:42, wrote:
> On March 07, 2016 7:36pm, wrote:
>> >>> On 07.03.16 at 12:23, wrote:
>> > On March 07, 2016 7:14pm, wrote:
>> >> >>> On 07.03.16 at 08:05, wrote:
>> >
>> >
>> >> > A quick question, is it '-ERESTART', instead of '-EBUSY' ?
>> >>
>> >> No idea what this questi
On March 07, 2016 7:36pm, wrote:
> >>> On 07.03.16 at 12:23, wrote:
> > On March 07, 2016 7:14pm, wrote:
> >> >>> On 07.03.16 at 08:05, wrote:
> >
> >
> >> > A quick question, is it '-ERESTART', instead of '-EBUSY' ?
> >>
> >> No idea what this question is about in this context.
> >>
> >
> > it
>>> On 07.03.16 at 12:23, wrote:
> On March 07, 2016 7:14pm, wrote:
>> >>> On 07.03.16 at 08:05, wrote:
>
>
>> > A quick question, is it '-ERESTART', instead of '-EBUSY' ?
>>
>> No idea what this question is about in this context.
>>
>
> it is in xen/drivers/passthrough/pci.c, assign_device
On March 07, 2016 7:14pm, wrote:
> >>> On 07.03.16 at 08:05, wrote:
> > A quick question, is it '-ERESTART', instead of '-EBUSY' ?
>
> No idea what this question is about in this context.
>
it is in xen/drivers/passthrough/pci.c, assign_device().
static int assign_device()
{
if
>>> On 07.03.16 at 08:05, wrote:
> I try to fix it with follow:
> patch >>
>
> --- a/xen/drivers/passthrough/pci.c
> +++ b/xen/drivers/passthrough/pci.c
> @@ -118,6 +118,11 @@ int pcidevs_is_locked(void)
> return spin_is_locked(&_pcidevs_lock);
> }
>
> +int pcidevs_tryloc
On March 04, 2016 9:59pm, wrote:
> On Fri, 2016-03-04 at 11:54 +, Xu, Quan wrote:
> > On March 04, 2016 5:29pm, wrote:
> > > On March 04, 2016 7:59am, wrote:
> > >
> > > > Also I'd highlight the below modification:
> > > > -if ( !spin_trylock(&pcidevs_lock) )
> > > > -return -ERE
>>> On 04.03.16 at 14:59, wrote:
> On Fri, 2016-03-04 at 11:54 +, Xu, Quan wrote:
>> On March 04, 2016 5:29pm, wrote:
>> > To be honest, changes like this would better not be buried in a big
>> > rework like
>> > the one here. Make it a prereq patch, where you then will kind of
>> > automatic
On Fri, 2016-03-04 at 11:54 +, Xu, Quan wrote:
> On March 04, 2016 5:29pm, wrote:
> > On March 04, 2016 7:59am, wrote:
> >
> > > Also I'd highlight the below modification:
> > > -if ( !spin_trylock(&pcidevs_lock) )
> > > -return -ERESTART;
> > > -
> > > +pcidevs_lock();
> > >
On March 04, 2016 5:29pm, wrote:
> >>> On 04.03.16 at 03:45, wrote:
> > On March 04, 2016 7:59am, wrote:
> >> On Wed, 2016-03-02 at 22:31 +0800, Quan Xu wrote:
> >> > @@ -788,10 +787,10 @@ static bool_t __init
> >> > set_iommu_interrupt_handler(struct amd_iommu *iommu)
> >> > return 0;
>>> On 04.03.16 at 03:45, wrote:
> On March 04, 2016 7:59am, wrote:
>> On Wed, 2016-03-02 at 22:31 +0800, Quan Xu wrote:
>> > @@ -788,10 +787,10 @@ static bool_t __init
>> > set_iommu_interrupt_handler(struct amd_iommu *iommu)
>> > return 0;
>> > }
>> >
>> > -spin_lock_irqsave(&
On March 04, 2016 7:59am, wrote:
> On Wed, 2016-03-02 at 22:31 +0800, Quan Xu wrote:
> > Signed-off-by: Quan Xu
> >
> So, this patch looks ok to me.
>
> I spotted something, though, that I think needs some attention.
>
> Since I'm jumping on this series only now, if this has been discussed befo
[I've removed some of the people that shouldn't be involved in this
discussion any longer from the Cc-list]
On Wed, 2016-03-02 at 22:31 +0800, Quan Xu wrote:
> Signed-off-by: Quan Xu
>
So, this patch looks ok to me.
I spotted something, though, that I think needs some attention.
Since I'm jump
Signed-off-by: Quan Xu
---
xen/arch/x86/domctl.c | 8 +--
xen/arch/x86/hvm/vmsi.c | 4 +-
xen/arch/x86/irq.c | 8 +--
xen/arch/x86/msi.c | 16 ++---
xen/arch/x86/pci.c | 4 +-
14 matches
Mail list logo
