Re: [RFC XEN PATCH 4/6] x86/pvh: PVH dom0 also need PHYSDEVOP_setup_gsi call

From: Huang Rui <ray.huang@amd.com>
To: Andrew Cooper <andrew.cooper3@citrix.com>
Cc: "Jan Beulich" <jbeulich@suse.com>,
	"Deucher, Alexander" <Alexander.Deucher@amd.com>,
	"Koenig, Christian" <Christian.Koenig@amd.com>,
	"Hildebrand, Stewart" <Stewart.Hildebrand@amd.com>,
	"Xenia Ragiadakou" <burzalodowa@gmail.com>,
	"Huang, Honglei1" <Honglei1.Huang@amd.com>,
	"Zhang, Julia" <Julia.Zhang@amd.com>,
	"Chen, Jiqian" <Jiqian.Chen@amd.com>,
	"Roger Pau Monné" <roger.pau@citrix.com>,
	"Stefano Stabellini" <sstabellini@kernel.org>,
	"Anthony PERARD" <anthony.perard@citrix.com>,
	"xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org" <xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org>
Subject: Re: [RFC XEN PATCH 4/6] x86/pvh: PVH dom0 also need PHYSDEVOP_setup_gsi call
Date: Tue, 21 Mar 2023 20:42:10 +0800	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <ZBmmIhNpEfLsVBQo@amd.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <521ccacd-a45a-f55a-72ed-de6b64bca050@citrix.com>

On Thu, Mar 16, 2023 at 01:01:52AM +0800, Andrew Cooper wrote:
> On 14/03/2023 4:30 pm, Jan Beulich wrote:
> > On 12.03.2023 08:54, Huang Rui wrote:
> >> From: Chen Jiqian <Jiqian.Chen@amd.com>
> > An empty description won't do here. First of all you need to address the Why?
> > As already hinted at in the reply to the earlier patch, it looks like you're
> > breaking the intended IRQ model for PVH.
> 
> I think this is rather unfair.
> 
> Until you can point to the document which describes how IRQs are
> intended to work in PVH, I'd say this series is pretty damn good attempt
> to make something that functions, in the absence of any guidance.
> 

Thank you, Andrew! This is the first time we submit Xen patches, any
comments are warm for us. :-)

Thanks,
Ray