From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Marcelo Tosatti <mtosatti@redhat.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] KVM: Merge kvm_ioapic_get_delivery_bitmask into
	kvm_get_intr_delivery_bitmask
Date: Tue, 3 Mar 2009 23:55:06 -0300
Message-ID: <20090304025506.GA21902@amt.cnet>
References: <1235981973-6740-1-git-send-email-sheng@linux.intel.com> <20090303112037.GA13997@amt.cnet> <200903041041.35016.sheng@linux.intel.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Cc: Avi Kivity <avi@redhat.com>, kvm@vger.kernel.org,
	Gleb Natapov <gleb@redhat.com>
To: Sheng Yang <sheng@linux.intel.com>
Return-path: <kvm-owner@vger.kernel.org>
Received: from mx2.redhat.com ([66.187.237.31]:54562 "EHLO mx2.redhat.com"
	rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP
	id S1750750AbZCDCz4 (ORCPT <rfc822;kvm@vger.kernel.org>);
	Tue, 3 Mar 2009 21:55:56 -0500
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <200903041041.35016.sheng@linux.intel.com>
Sender: kvm-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-ID: <kvm.vger.kernel.org>


Hi Sheng,

> > The spec says broadcast is not supported with lowest priority delivery
> > mode, and that "must not be configured by software". I wonder what happens
> > in HW if you do that.
> >
> 
> Um.. So you mean to prohibit this kind of action? OK.

No, I'm just wondering what the HW does, and what are the implications
of the (supposedly) different behaviour KVM emulates.

> > Unrelated question, what was the issue (in detail) which caused
> > this change again:
> 
> I have dig out my old post (I thought you are also involved :) ) 

Short memory :)

Thanks, will read tomorrow.