From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Pasi =?iso-8859-1?Q?K=E4rkk=E4inen?= Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/3] qemu-xen-trad: IGD passthrough: Expose vendor specific pci cap on host bridge. Date: Mon, 5 Aug 2013 19:15:03 +0300 Message-ID: <20130805161503.GN2924@reaktio.net> References: <51C9A44E.1050309@citrix.com> <20130625145438.GA28904@phenom.dumpdata.com> <51C9B0B9.4000409@citrix.com> <20130626125301.GB4222@phenom.dumpdata.com> <20130701130637.GA10934@phenom.dumpdata.com> <20130715160633.GF2924@reaktio.net> <51E435BF.6010708@citrix.com> <20130715225520.GH2924@reaktio.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Return-path: Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20130715225520.GH2924@reaktio.net> List-Unsubscribe: , List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: xen-devel-bounces@lists.xen.org Errors-To: xen-devel-bounces@lists.xen.org To: Ross Philipson Cc: Ian Campbell , "G.R." , xen-devel , Stefano Stabellini , Jan Beulich , Jean Guyader List-Id: xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org On Tue, Jul 16, 2013 at 01:55:20AM +0300, Pasi K=E4rkk=E4inen wrote: > > >>How was that diagnosed? Perhaps that information can be part of the s= ource > > >>code to help in the future with diagnosiing which caps are needed and > > >>which ones can be blacklisted? > > >> > > > > > >I guess that's a question mostly for Ross/Jean as they're the original= authors of the patch? > > = > > We discovered the issue with Windows guests running the vendor > > drivers for the passed in IGD graphics device. Under certain > > circumstances (resuming from S3/S4 IIRC), the guest would BSOD. I > > finally tracked it down to a bad state in the resuming driver > > because it was not coded to handle the vendor capabilities not being > > present on the host bridge. BTW, those capabilities are flags > > indicating what features the IGD card has - their exact meaning is > > of course proprietary. > > = > > I cannot say it was only a problem on Windows but rather that that > > is the only place we ever saw it. > > = > > I never saw any other capabilities on the hosts bridges at that > > time, just vendor ones so the patch just handled that. If there were > > other capabilities, I would think it would have to be determined on > > a case by case basis whether they were included. Inclusion of each > > new type would have different ramifications it seems. > > = > = > Thanks for the explanation. I guess parts of that should go to the patch = description aswell.. > = Now patch 2/3 has been applied to qemu-traditional, so only this patch 3/3 = is missing from qemu-traditional from this series. Any other changes outstanding? or only to add some of Ross's comments to th= e patch description (and/or sources) ? = Thanks, -- Pasi