> -----Original Message-----
> From: Tian, Kevin
> Sent: Tuesday, November 24, 2015 3:30 PM
> To: Wu, Feng <feng...@intel.com>; xen-devel@lists.xen.org
> Cc: Keir Fraser <k...@xen.org>; Jan Beulich <jbeul...@suse.com>; Andrew
> Cooper <andrew.coop...@citrix.com>
> Subject: RE: [PATCH v9 08/17] vmx: Suppress posting interrupts when 'SN' is
> set
>
> > From: Wu, Feng
> > Sent: Tuesday, November 03, 2015 4:43 PM
> N' is set
> >
> > Currently, we don't support urgent interrupt, all interrupts
> > are recognized as non-urgent interrupt, so we cannot send
> > posted-interrupt when 'SN' is set.
> >
> > CC: Kevin Tian <kevin.t...@intel.com>
> > CC: Keir Fraser <k...@xen.org>
> > CC: Jan Beulich <jbeul...@suse.com>
> > CC: Andrew Cooper <andrew.coop...@citrix.com>
> > Signed-off-by: Feng Wu <feng...@intel.com>
> > Reviewed-by: Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk <konrad.w...@oracle.com>
> > Reviewed-by: Jan Beulich <jbeul...@suse.com>
>
> Acked-by: Kevin Tian <kevin.t...@intel.com>, with one small comment:
>
> > + do {
> > + /*
> > + * Currently, we don't support urgent interrupt, all
> > + * interrupts are recognized as non-urgent interrupt,
> > + * so we cannot send posted-interrupt when 'SN' is set.
> > + * Besides that, if 'ON' is already set, we cannot set
> > + * posted-interrupts as well.
> > + */
>
> Is above comment accurate. "cannot set" is too strong for 'ON'
> already set, right? Ideally there's no correctness issue if you
> still deliver another posted-interrupt even when ON is already set.
> To me it's more like an optimization then it's cleaner to say
> "we can avoid"...
Here, we just emulate the hardware's behavior, in hardware p.o.v,
if 'ON' is set, the notification event will not be delivered, so here
I try to follow the hardware, is this reasonable for you?
Thanks,
Feng
>
> Thanks
> Kevin
_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@lists.xen.org
http://lists.xen.org/xen-devel
