Re: [Xen-devel] Regression PCI passthrough from 4.5.5 to 4.6.0-rc1

[Roger Pau Monné <roger.pau@xxxxxxxxxx>]

On Thu, Nov 02, 2017 at 07:02:49PM +0200, Pasi Kärkkäinen wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 24, 2017 at 09:23:16AM +0100, Roger Pau Monné wrote:
> > On Wed, Aug 23, 2017 at 07:13:00PM +0200, Andreas Kinzler wrote:
> > > > > > From a brief look it looks like this would be doable, but the way
> > > > > these flags are being communicated is rather ugly (the values used
> > > > > here
> > > > > > aren't part of the public interface, and hence it wasn't immediately
> > > > > > clear whether using one of the unused bits would be an option, but
> > > > > > it looks like it is).
> > > > > Yes, it's not pretty... Last used bit is 15, hence bit 16 could be
> > > > > used to signal to Xen whether the interrupt should be unmasked after
> > > > > binding. I have a half-drafted patch, will finish it now.
> > > > Andreas, could you please give a try to the attached two patches? One
> > > > is for Xen and the other one is for QEMU.
> > > 
> > > Seems to work after I fixed a bug ;-)
> > > 
> > > -gflags |= masked ? 0 : XEN_PT_GFLAGSSHIFT_UNMASKED;
> > > +gflags |= masked ? 0 : (1 << XEN_PT_GFLAGSSHIFT_UNMASKED);
> > > 
> > > Please let Jan and/or others review the patches.
> > 
> > Thanks. I would like to add your tested-by if possible, since I'm not
> > able to trigger this behavior myself.
> > 
> 
> Hmm.. did these patches get merged / acked? 

Yes, both the QEMU and the Xen sides have been merged.

Roger.

_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://lists.xen.org/xen-devel