 Home |
Products |
Support |
Community |
News |
xen-devel
[Xen-devel] set_msi_affinity() vs. pci_restore_msi_state()
| To: | <xiantao.zhang@xxxxxxxxx> |
|---|---|
| Subject: | [Xen-devel] set_msi_affinity() vs. pci_restore_msi_state() |
| From: | "Jan Beulich" <JBeulich@xxxxxxxxxx> |
| Date: | Fri, 05 Mar 2010 16:03:52 +0000 |
| Cc: | xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx |
| Delivery-date: | Fri, 05 Mar 2010 08:04:39 -0800 |
| Envelope-to: | www-data@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx |
| 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 |
Isn't the fact that the former updates the MSI message data without updating the copy of it in memory a problem for the latter, i.e. won't the latter restore stale information? While the problem (if there is one) existed before c/s 20073, the fact that the vector now can change seems to make the potential effect of this much worse. Thanks, Jan _______________________________________________ Xen-devel mailing list Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.xensource.com/xen-devel |
| <Prev in Thread] | Current Thread | [Next in Thread> |
|---|---|---|
| ||
| Previous by Date: | [Xen-devel] Re: [PATCH] x86/hvm: accelerate IO intercept handling, Keir Fraser |
|---|---|
| Next by Date: | [Xen-devel] Re: 4.0 config file/ build error, ccmail111 |
| Previous by Thread: | [Xen-devel] [PATCH] x86/hvm: accelerate IO intercept handling, Andre Przywara |
| Next by Thread: | [Xen-devel] RE: set_msi_affinity() vs. pci_restore_msi_state(), Zhang, Xiantao |
| Indexes: | [Date] [Thread] [Top] [All Lists] |
