From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Andrew Cooper <andrew.cooper3@citrix.com>
Subject: Re:
 =?utf-8?q?=5BPATCH_v4_RFC_2/6=5D_x86/MSI-X=3A_track_h?=
 =?utf-8?q?ost_and_guest_mask=E2=80=91all_requests_separately?=
Date: Wed, 24 Jun 2015 18:15:15 +0100
Message-ID: <558AE5A3.3080202@citrix.com>
References: <558839ED02000078000879FE@mail.emea.novell.com>
	<55883C240200007800087A24@mail.emea.novell.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Return-path: <xen-devel-bounces@lists.xen.org>
Received: from mail6.bemta14.messagelabs.com ([193.109.254.103])
	by lists.xen.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72)
	(envelope-from <prvs=610b37477=Andrew.Cooper3@citrix.com>)
	id 1Z7oGf-0005tE-Gz
	for xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org; Wed, 24 Jun 2015 17:15:21 +0000
In-Reply-To: <55883C240200007800087A24@mail.emea.novell.com>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.xen.org/cgi-bin/mailman/options/xen-devel>,
	<mailto:xen-devel-request@lists.xen.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Post: <mailto:xen-devel@lists.xen.org>
List-Help: <mailto:xen-devel-request@lists.xen.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.xen.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/xen-devel>,
	<mailto:xen-devel-request@lists.xen.org?subject=subscribe>
Sender: xen-devel-bounces@lists.xen.org
Errors-To: xen-devel-bounces@lists.xen.org
To: Jan Beulich <JBeulich@suse.com>, xen-devel <xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org>
Cc: Keir Fraser <keir@xen.org>
List-Id: xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org

On 22/06/15 15:47, Jan Beulich wrote:
> Host uses of the bits will be added subsequently, and must not be
> overridden by guests (including Dom0, namely when acting on behalf of
> a guest).
>
> Signed-off-by: Jan Beulich <jbeulich@suse.com>
>
> --- a/xen/arch/x86/msi.c
> +++ b/xen/arch/x86/msi.c
> @@ -846,6 +846,12 @@ static int msix_capability_init(struct p
>  
>      if ( !msix->used_entries )
>      {
> +        msix->host_maskall = 0;
> +        if ( !msix->guest_maskall )
> +            control &= ~PCI_MSIX_FLAGS_MASKALL;
> +        else
> +            control |= PCI_MSIX_FLAGS_MASKALL;

Is the guest (or hardware) in a position to influence guest_maskall at
this point?  I am not sure that it is.

~Andrew