On Mon, Jan 04, 2021 at 05:35:23PM +0100, Jan Beulich wrote:
> Thanks.
>
> > Manuel, can we get confirmation that this fixes your issue?
>
> I'll give it some time before committing for him to confirm,
> but I guess I'd like to time out by the end of the week.
Yes, it works for me
--
Manuel Bo
On 28.12.2020 19:24, Roger Pau Monné wrote:
> On Mon, Dec 07, 2020 at 11:36:38AM +0100, Jan Beulich wrote:
>> None of the four reasons causing vpci_msix_arch_mask_entry() to get
>> called (there's just a single call site) are impossible or illegal prior
>> to an entry actually having got set up:
>>
On Mon, Dec 07, 2020 at 11:36:38AM +0100, Jan Beulich wrote:
> None of the four reasons causing vpci_msix_arch_mask_entry() to get
> called (there's just a single call site) are impossible or illegal prior
> to an entry actually having got set up:
> - the entry may remain masked (in this case, howe
None of the four reasons causing vpci_msix_arch_mask_entry() to get
called (there's just a single call site) are impossible or illegal prior
to an entry actually having got set up:
- the entry may remain masked (in this case, however, a prior masked ->
unmasked transition would already not have w
