>>> On 09.12.15 at 16:55, <stefano.stabell...@eu.citrix.com> wrote: > On Tue, 8 Dec 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 masked the entry without the >> guest having done so). Plus these writes shouldn't be dropped even when >> an entry gets unmasked. Instead, if they can't be made take effect >> right away, they should take effect on the next unmasking or enabling >> operation - the specification explicitly describes such caching >> behavior. >> >> Signed-off-by: Jan Beulich <jbeul...@suse.com> > > I have applied this patch and the first 2 of the series to my "next" > branch. I have to think a bit more about the fourth.
Thanks (I guess you mean this one and the _next_ 2 of this series). Jan _______________________________________________ Xen-devel mailing list Xen-devel@lists.xen.org http://lists.xen.org/xen-devel
