From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Avi Kivity Subject: Re: [kvm-commits] KVM: Fix ioapic level-triggered interrupt redelivery Date: Wed, 19 Sep 2007 15:52:28 +0200 Message-ID: <46F1299C.3060509@qumranet.com> References: <20070918122732.3F11D250D4F@il.qumranet.com> <10EA09EFD8728347A513008B6B0DA77A014E8AF2@pdsmsx411.ccr.corp.intel.com> <46F12713.9030004@qumranet.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: kvm-devel To: "Dong, Eddie" Return-path: In-Reply-To: <46F12713.9030004-atKUWr5tajBWk0Htik3J/w@public.gmane.org> List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: kvm-devel-bounces-5NWGOfrQmneRv+LV9MX5uipxlwaOVQ5f@public.gmane.org Errors-To: kvm-devel-bounces-5NWGOfrQmneRv+LV9MX5uipxlwaOVQ5f@public.gmane.org List-Id: kvm.vger.kernel.org Avi Kivity wrote: > >> Also architectually level = 0 may also mean an IRQ to IOAPIC >> if the polarity is negative though today we may not see this. But >> this change will expose the risk, and the propose of pass-through >> hardware device will change the polarity. >> > > Sure, if you run Xen + pci passthrough with the polarity reversal on > kvm :) > > We do want a correct polarity implementation -- I'll do that later > on. I certainly won't say no to patches... > Can't we just do level ^= polarity; at the beginning of the function? Then reversed polarity interrupts use the same code as normal interrupts. -- error compiling committee.c: too many arguments to function ------------------------------------------------------------------------- This SF.net email is sponsored by: Microsoft Defy all challenges. Microsoft(R) Visual Studio 2005. http://clk.atdmt.com/MRT/go/vse0120000070mrt/direct/01/