Re: [Xen-devel] Re: pv_ops parport trouble

To:	Jeremy Fitzhardinge <jeremy@xxxxxxxx>
Subject:	Re: [Xen-devel] Re: pv_ops parport trouble
From:	Keir Fraser <keir.fraser@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date:	Thu, 19 Feb 2009 16:51:03 +0000
Cc:	Xen Development Mailing List <xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, Gerd Hoffmann <kraxel@xxxxxxxxxx>
Delivery-date:	Thu, 19 Feb 2009 08:51:39 -0800
Envelope-to:	www-data@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
In-reply-to:	<499D878F.4070906@xxxxxxxx>
List-help:	<mailto:xen-devel-request@lists.xensource.com?subject=help>
List-id:	Xen developer discussion <xen-devel.lists.xensource.com>
List-post:	<mailto:xen-devel@lists.xensource.com>
List-subscribe:	<http://lists.xensource.com/mailman/listinfo/xen-devel>, <mailto:xen-devel-request@lists.xensource.com?subject=subscribe>
List-unsubscribe:	<http://lists.xensource.com/mailman/listinfo/xen-devel>, <mailto:xen-devel-request@lists.xensource.com?subject=unsubscribe>
Sender:	xen-devel-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Thread-index:	AcmSrnhN1iw2Pz99SKWQUuNX2E0MdAAA8eOq
Thread-topic:	[Xen-devel] Re: pv_ops parport trouble
User-agent:	Microsoft-Entourage/12.15.0.081119

On 19/02/2009 16:23, "Jeremy Fitzhardinge" <jeremy@xxxxxxxx> wrote:

>> Yes, that looks completely backwards. Could pv_ops dom0 be getting the
>> trigger flag in IO-APIC redir entries inverted somehow?
>>   
> 
> I guess that's possible, but the code in question does just pass the
> trigger and polarity straight through.  What does it say about the
> trigger and polarity for those interrupts in the dmesg output?
> 
> I guess it would explain quite a few of the "lost interrupt" symptoms
> we've been seeing, but I'm surprised things work at all well if they
> really are reversed.

Comparing with a non-pv_ops dom0 on that same system would be an obvious
next step.

 -- Keir



_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.xensource.com/xen-devel

WARNING - OLD ARCHIVES

xen-devel

Re: [Xen-devel] Re: pv_ops parport trouble