From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Ian Campbell <ian.campbell@citrix.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 1/4] x86/MSI-X: be more careful during
 teardown
Date: Tue, 14 Apr 2015 14:47:49 +0100
Message-ID: <1429019269.15516.55.camel@citrix.com>
References: <5512F1B3020000780006D924@mail.emea.novell.com>
	<5512F2C2020000780006D941@mail.emea.novell.com>
	<alpine.DEB.2.02.1504021718160.7690@kaball.uk.xensource.com>
	<552BA47802000078000715E5@mail.emea.novell.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Return-path: <xen-devel-bounces@lists.xen.org>
Received: from mail6.bemta14.messagelabs.com ([193.109.254.103])
	by lists.xen.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72)
	(envelope-from <Ian.Campbell@citrix.com>) id 1Yi1Bx-0002QE-Hl
	for xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org; Tue, 14 Apr 2015 13:47:53 +0000
In-Reply-To: <552BA47802000078000715E5@mail.emea.novell.com>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.xen.org/cgi-bin/mailman/options/xen-devel>,
	<mailto:xen-devel-request@lists.xen.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Post: <mailto:xen-devel@lists.xen.org>
List-Help: <mailto:xen-devel-request@lists.xen.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.xen.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/xen-devel>,
	<mailto:xen-devel-request@lists.xen.org?subject=subscribe>
Sender: xen-devel-bounces@lists.xen.org
Errors-To: xen-devel-bounces@lists.xen.org
To: Jan Beulich <JBeulich@suse.com>
Cc: Andrew Cooper <andrew.cooper3@citrix.com>, Keir Fraser <keir@xen.org>, xen-devel <xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org>, Stefano Stabellini <stefano.stabellini@eu.citrix.com>
List-Id: xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org

On Mon, 2015-04-13 at 10:11 +0100, Jan Beulich wrote:
> >>> On 02.04.15 at 18:49, <stefano.stabellini@eu.citrix.com> wrote:
> > In any case we should make it clear somewhere who is supposed to write
> > to the command register (and other PCI reigsters) at any given time,
> > otherwise it would be very easy for a new kernel update to break the
> > hypervisor and we wouldn't even know why it happened.
> 
> We should, but at this point in time this is going to be rather
> problematic. Such a separation of responsibilities should have been
> done before all the pass-through code got written.

Wasn't Stefano just asking to write down the current semantics, problems
and all?

I think that would be a wonderful idea even if for some parts the
documentation is things like:
      * "we don't really know";
      * "there are multiple parties X, Y and Z involved and it's a
        mess";
      * "currently qemu, but really ought to be Xen";
      * etc.

I think half the problem with coming up with a plan to move forward is
that exactly where we are now isn't very clear, so having a thing to
refer to there might be helpful above and beyond it being a good idea to
write these things down on principal.

Ian.