From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([208.118.235.92]:34093) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1SbikS-0003Vt-7L for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Mon, 04 Jun 2012 21:39:53 -0400 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1SbikQ-0003Bl-MD for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Mon, 04 Jun 2012 21:39:51 -0400 Received: from gate.crashing.org ([63.228.1.57]:41781) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1SbikQ-0003Bd-Di for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Mon, 04 Jun 2012 21:39:50 -0400 Message-ID: <1338860382.7150.97.camel@pasglop> From: Benjamin Herrenschmidt Date: Tue, 05 Jun 2012 11:39:42 +1000 In-Reply-To: <4FBE2349.6040800@siemens.com> References: <4FBDE6D6.80700@ozlabs.ru> <4FBE2349.6040800@siemens.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Mime-Version: 1.0 Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [RFC PATCH] PCI: Introduce INTx check & mask API List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , To: Jan Kiszka Cc: kvm@vger.kernel.org, Alexey Kardashevskiy , qemu-devel@nongnu.org, Alex Graf , Alex Williamson , David Gibson On Thu, 2012-05-24 at 09:02 -0300, Jan Kiszka wrote: > > Since PCI 2.3, this bit is mandatory, and it should be independent of > the masking bit. The question is, if your device is supposed to support > 2.3, thus is just buggy, It's a PCI Express device :-) > or if our detection algorithm is unreliable. It > basically builds on the assumption that, if we can flip the mask bit, > the feature should be present. I guess that is the best we can do. Maybe > we can augment this with a blacklist of devices that "support" flipping > without actually providing the feature. Cheers, Ben.