From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from smtp.kernel.org (aws-us-west-2-korg-mail-alma10-1.taild15c8.ts.net [100.103.45.18]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 707BA3783AF; Tue, 1 Sep 2026 09:53:17 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=100.103.45.18 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1788256398; cv=none; b=lsKdv2YHqMwezkxvsWZ61mptUI85xHesO0EZJX77ojkHtIobphoFZekMtadVjB1CRGVqwzCXBl6Ujh8mfcjxoG5H6eiec7SmCCdxt3tVHXQ/GxCWcLNR67GldhB+O1itUWGwCdoyNFLB6QHQNFufqorkymDxF9XMTG8dhh6/iSc= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1788256398; c=relaxed/simple; bh=c9XMcH59apMWuMmIpOSlBxOfhHXdytxRrrYl7kqNLtM=; h=From:Subject:To:Cc:In-Reply-To:References:Content-Type:Date: Message-Id; b=jR5/yPgVBB9TBwVMW6oMCs7RanxZWTA+f79vTQJTlGHSAf6mxkkj3/yCykl48FqIuLQtDEjhR92VFx/DGDMRXXk26Cp6A3uqMLb1ZkBUoSsMTPv8KLdv82mIRKInpj+5vI1RmLvubZqFCbMHJungdpb7YKHwo5bt5lVXgFb/83U= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=kernel.org header.i=@kernel.org header.b=IIR5KYgX; arc=none smtp.client-ip=100.103.45.18 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=kernel.org header.i=@kernel.org header.b="IIR5KYgX" Received: by smtp.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id DA2441F000E9; Tue, 1 Sep 2026 09:53:16 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=kernel.org; s=k20260515; t=1788256397; bh=c9XMcH59apMWuMmIpOSlBxOfhHXdytxRrrYl7kqNLtM=; h=From:Subject:Reply-To:To:Cc:In-Reply-To:References:Date; b=IIR5KYgXNoh3e/Ys/0XPFqxojZJZwkKLpA4afht/BZOIKeOI2OaZcCqPz+hjWYBUJ UsWDO3jTEFbcSzw2rszEwuSKoR0ScLeOmJUWiuLToZvYsBbfgWuKwmRAg1b7r8D2eH gDL5OXsZackBbMgqh3F5gkJf6PWEgg6gk6wtN48I4dhO2uY3UG23AQeRSLilFmL7wl WHVy65AHoL586aiqQizs+RhzGG70LVGLLSSgwXFwUZkfmqNg2ApZ+nw5I5SBRQ919/ mvdeGy+OCQdEeMaw239B4P4Fc6MtsK0Bvlk/St/pO6jz0mEO9azuKqnaUsb48PjlLB QtUVi2Q4nRrSA== From: sashiko-bot@kernel.org Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 16/19] vfio/pci: Quiesce INTx during PCI recovery Reply-To: sashiko-reviews@lists.linux.dev To: "Shameer Kolothum" Cc: kvm@vger.kernel.org, linux-pci@vger.kernel.org In-Reply-To: <20260901093217.8539-17-skolothumtho@nvidia.com> References: <20260901093217.8539-1-skolothumtho@nvidia.com> <20260901093217.8539-17-skolothumtho@nvidia.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Date: Tue, 01 Sep 2026 09:53:16 +0000 Message-Id: <20260901095316.DA2441F000E9@smtp.kernel.org> Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: linux-pci@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: > Mask INTx when recovery blocks device access. A PCI 2.3 device shares its > line, so leaving a level interrupt asserted and returning IRQ_NONE would > storm until note_interrupt() disables the line for every device on it. > Mask through pci_check_and_mask_intx() and return IRQ_HANDLED instead. A > device without per-function masking has the line to itself and is quiesced > through genirq. >=20 > That is a different job from the masking recovery does for itself, so > vfio_pci_intx_mask_for_recovery() gains a @quiesce argument to tell them > apart. The handler knows an interrupt has fired but not whether this > device is the one asserting the shared line, which is what > pci_check_and_mask_intx() reports, and a false return means the interrupt > belongs to another device. It is also the user who unmasks afterwards, > having been sent the eventfd, so the handler does not record the mask as > one recovery owes. > [ ... ] > for an interrupt which cannot arrive, since it only unmasks again after > receiving one. >=20 > Assisted-by: Claude:claude-opus-5 > Signed-off-by: Shameer Kolothum Sashiko has reviewed this patch and found no issues. It looks great! --=20 Sashiko AI review =C2=B7 https://sashiko.dev/#/patchset/20260901093217.8539= -1-skolothumtho@nvidia.com?part=3D16