From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: "Jan Beulich" Subject: [PATCH v4 RFC 0/6] x86/MSI: XSA-120, 126, 128-131 follow-up Date: Mon, 22 Jun 2015 15:38:05 +0100 Message-ID: <558839ED02000078000879FE@mail.emea.novell.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: Received: from mail6.bemta14.messagelabs.com ([193.109.254.103]) by lists.xen.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from ) id 1Z72rS-0007ft-Qd for xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org; Mon, 22 Jun 2015 14:38:10 +0000 Content-Disposition: inline List-Unsubscribe: , List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: xen-devel-bounces@lists.xen.org Errors-To: xen-devel-bounces@lists.xen.org To: xen-devel Cc: Andrew Cooper , Keir Fraser , Roger Pau Monne List-Id: xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org Only patches 1, 2, and 6 are really RFC (with some debugging code still left in), the others (hence v4) have been submitted before. 1: PCI: add config space write abstract intercept logic 2: MSI-X: track host and guest mask-all requests separately 3: MSI-X: be more careful during teardown 4: MSI-X: access MSI-X table only after having enabled MSI-X 5: MSI-X: reduce fiddling with control register during restore 6: MSI: properly track guest masking requests A fundamental question is whether to go without the so far missing (and more involved) MMCFG intercepts. This largely depends whether there are any half way recent Dom0 OSes using MMCFG accesses for the base 256 bytes of PCI config space. Signed-off-by: Jan Beulich