>>> On 24.08.17 at 12:06, <roger....@citrix.com> wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 24, 2017 at 03:54:21AM -0600, Jan Beulich wrote:
>> >>> On 24.08.17 at 11:47, <roger....@citrix.com> wrote:
>> > @@ -274,7 +278,7 @@ int xen_pt_msi_update(XenPCIPassthroughState *s)
>> > {
>> > XenPTMSI *msi = s->msi;
>> > return msi_msix_update(s, msi_addr64(msi), msi->data, msi->pirq,
>> > - false, 0, &msi->pirq);
>> > + false, 0, &msi->pirq, false);
>> > }
>>
>> I don't think this is correct when the device has mask bits.
>
> Right, I thought I modified this. I've already changed
> pt_irq_create_bind so that the original behavior is keep if the unmask
> bit is not set. In this case this should be 'true' in order to keep
> the previous behavior, which was correct for MSI.
Wouldn't you want to pass the state of the mask bit here,
rather than uniformly hard coding true or false?
> It also makes me wonder whether it would be better to change the name
> of the parameter to "unmask", so that false -> no change to mask, true
> -> unconditionally unmask.
I don't care much about this aspect, but perhaps the qemu
maintainers do.
Jan
_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@lists.xen.org
https://lists.xen.org/xen-devel
