>>> Tue, 16 Jun 2015 15:48:16 +0100 Stefano Stabellini wrote:
>On Tue, 16 Jun 2015, Jan Beulich wrote:
>> >>> On 16.06.15 at 15:35, Stefano Stabellini wrote:
>> > On Fri, 5 Jun 2015, Jan Beulich wrote:
I'm sorry for getting back to this only now.
>> >> @@ -322,6 +323,13 @@ static int xen_pt_msix_
On Tue, 16 Jun 2015, Jan Beulich wrote:
> >>> On 16.06.15 at 15:35, wrote:
> > On Fri, 5 Jun 2015, Jan Beulich wrote:
> >> @@ -322,6 +323,13 @@ static int xen_pt_msix_update_one(XenPCI
> >>
> >> pirq = entry->pirq;
> >>
> >> +if (pirq == XEN_PT_UNASSIGNED_PIRQ || s->msix->maskall ||
>
>>> On 16.06.15 at 15:35, wrote:
> On Fri, 5 Jun 2015, Jan Beulich wrote:
>> @@ -322,6 +323,13 @@ static int xen_pt_msix_update_one(XenPCI
>>
>> pirq = entry->pirq;
>>
>> +if (pirq == XEN_PT_UNASSIGNED_PIRQ || s->msix->maskall ||
>> +(entry->latch(VECTOR_CTRL) & PCI_MSIX_ENTRY
On Fri, 5 Jun 2015, Jan Beulich wrote:
> The remaining log message in pci_msix_write() is wrong, as there guest
> behavior may only appear to be wrong: For one, the old logic didn't
> take the mask-all bit into account. And then this shouldn't depend on
> host device state (i.e. the host may have m
