From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:50537) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1dFyzz-0001Hy-2w for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Wed, 31 May 2017 04:28:59 -0400 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1dFyzv-0005Ie-4h for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Wed, 31 May 2017 04:28:59 -0400 Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([209.132.183.28]:37788) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.0:DHE_RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:32) (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1dFyzu-0005IX-V3 for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Wed, 31 May 2017 04:28:55 -0400 Received: from smtp.corp.redhat.com (int-mx03.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.11.13]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mx1.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id DF8C9C0467C1 for ; Wed, 31 May 2017 08:28:53 +0000 (UTC) Date: Wed, 31 May 2017 04:28:47 -0400 (EDT) From: Paolo Bonzini Message-ID: <1013114653.3661277.1496219327691.JavaMail.zimbra@redhat.com> In-Reply-To: <20170531082651.GJ14845@pxdev.xzpeter.org> References: <1494854073-19898-1-git-send-email-peterx@redhat.com> <87d1ar504h.fsf@dusky.pond.sub.org> <13985c6d-d24a-ac50-2708-fc3b9cc64acd@redhat.com> <87h902l8qd.fsf@dusky.pond.sub.org> <6a6a91cc-7ea1-2b45-a4bd-31aa3cfef917@redhat.com> <20170531070346.GE14845@pxdev.xzpeter.org> <1633113774.3648008.1496216414543.JavaMail.zimbra@redhat.com> <20170531082651.GJ14845@pxdev.xzpeter.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH] msi: remove return code for msi_init() List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , To: Peter Xu Cc: Markus Armbruster , Marcel Apfelbaum , qemu-devel@nongnu.org, "Michael S . Tsirkin" > Ok before I move on let's see whether this is what we want... > > - firstly, find all machine types: > > pxdev:qemu [edu-fix]# grep -R ".parent = TYPE_MACHINE" * | wc > 49 196 2269 > > so now we have 49 kinds of machines. > > - rename msi_nonbroken into msi_broken, then: > > - x86/arm/spapr/s390 machines are the only ones that don't need to > set msi_broken since they support MSI and have msi_nonbroken set, > either in board init function or in irq chip init function > > - for all the rest of the machines, I should add "msi_broken" in its > machine init() function. > > Is this really what we want? No, for now I'd rather just go and remove msi_nonbroken. When someone reports a bug, we can add back "msi_broken". Paolo