>>> On 15.04.15 at 19:41, <konrad.w...@oracle.com> wrote: > On Mon, Apr 13, 2015 at 10:05:14AM +0100, Jan Beulich wrote: >> You mentioning XSA-120 and its addendum - are these requirements >> for the problem to be seen? I admit I may have tested a PV guest >> only with an SR-IOV VF (and only a HVM guest also with an "ordinary" >> device), but I'd like to be clear about the validity of the connection. > > No. I just tried with v4.0-rc5 (and then also v4.0) and just > using SR-IOV to make this simpler.
Good. > With staging + two of your patches: > a10cc68 TODO: drop //temp-s > 1b8721c x86/MSI-X: be more careful during teardown > > When trying to enable SR-IOV I get this error: Okay, this definitely works for me, albeit I know I had to do adjustments to avoid running into the (debug) warning you've hit. But (looking at the call stack) it surely would be a mistake to set up an MSI-X IRQ on the device without first enabling MSI-X on the it (i.e. the error returned could be considered legitimate). While we may want the hypervisor to cope with this (by enabling MSI-X on this path, which I'd have to add to that patch), is this hypervisor change perhaps uncovering a pv-ops kernel issue (in that other than what drivers/pci/msi.c does as of the commit mentioned in the description of that second patch some Xen- specific path fails to enable MSI-X before setting up any of the entries)? Jan _______________________________________________ Xen-devel mailing list Xen-devel@lists.xen.org http://lists.xen.org/xen-devel
