[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <BN9PR11MB5276C1DE988777A97FC5D2A78CBC9@BN9PR11MB5276.namprd11.prod.outlook.com>
Date: Thu, 16 Mar 2023 23:52:32 +0000
From: "Tian, Kevin" <kevin.tian@...el.com>
To: "Chatre, Reinette" <reinette.chatre@...el.com>,
Alex Williamson <alex.williamson@...hat.com>
CC: "jgg@...dia.com" <jgg@...dia.com>,
"yishaih@...dia.com" <yishaih@...dia.com>,
"shameerali.kolothum.thodi@...wei.com"
<shameerali.kolothum.thodi@...wei.com>,
"tglx@...utronix.de" <tglx@...utronix.de>,
"darwi@...utronix.de" <darwi@...utronix.de>,
"kvm@...r.kernel.org" <kvm@...r.kernel.org>,
"Jiang, Dave" <dave.jiang@...el.com>,
"Liu, Jing2" <jing2.liu@...el.com>,
"Raj, Ashok" <ashok.raj@...el.com>,
"Yu, Fenghua" <fenghua.yu@...el.com>,
"tom.zanussi@...ux.intel.com" <tom.zanussi@...ux.intel.com>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: RE: [RFC PATCH 0/8] vfio/pci: Support dynamic allocation of MSI-X
interrupts
> From: Chatre, Reinette <reinette.chatre@...el.com>
> Sent: Friday, March 17, 2023 7:38 AM
>
> > Based on above, there really can never be an error if we expect the
> > device to work, so I think there's a misread of the current status.
> > Dynamic MSI-X support should simply reduce the disruption and chance
> > of lost interrupts at the device, but the points where we risk that
> > the host cannot provide the configuration we need are the same.
>
> Thank you very much Alex. In this case, please do consider this
> submission as a submission for inclusion. I'd be happy to resubmit
> without the "RFC" prefix if that is preferred.
>
With that do we still want to keep the error behavior for MSI?
If no patch5 can be simplified e.g. no need of vfio_irq_ctx_range_allocated()
and MSI/MSI-X error behaviors become consistent.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists