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: Thu, 25 Jun 2015 15:25:23 +0100
Message-ID: <558C0F53.4040501@citrix.com>
References: <558839ED02000078000879FE@mail.emea.novell.com>
	<55883C240200007800087A24@mail.emea.novell.com>
	<558AE5A3.3080202@citrix.com>
	<558BD17E0200007800089594@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=6114ee934=Andrew.Cooper3@citrix.com>)
	id 1Z885s-0008PX-PX
	for xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org; Thu, 25 Jun 2015 14:25:32 +0000
In-Reply-To: <558BD17E0200007800089594@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>
Cc: xen-devel <xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org>, Keir Fraser <keir@xen.org>
List-Id: xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org

On 25/06/15 09:01, Jan Beulich wrote:
>>>> On 24.06.15 at 19:15, <andrew.cooper3@citrix.com> wrote:
>> 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.
> Of course - via the cfg write intercept (i.e. the hunk immediately
> following this one).

So it is.  I had got the call chronology confused.

Reviewed-by: Andrew Cooper <andrew.cooper3@citrix.com>  (although
perhaps better to wait until we understand Sanders MSI masking problem).

~Andrew