From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Received: from [140.186.70.92] (port=43287 helo=eggs.gnu.org)
	by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1OtFXb-00026x-NE
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Wed, 08 Sep 2010 03:58:01 -0400
Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.69)
	(envelope-from <mst@redhat.com>) id 1OtFXX-0004XM-Se
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Wed, 08 Sep 2010 03:57:57 -0400
Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([209.132.183.28]:32846)
	by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69)
	(envelope-from <mst@redhat.com>) id 1OtFXX-0004XB-Lp
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Wed, 08 Sep 2010 03:57:55 -0400
Date: Wed, 8 Sep 2010 10:51:54 +0300
From: "Michael S. Tsirkin" <mst@redhat.com>
Message-ID: <20100908075153.GB23051@redhat.com>
References: <cover.1283759074.git.yamahata@valinux.co.jp>
	<1d7d4f07f2fb76258de5cd1e1c5e147778988a71.1283759074.git.yamahata@valinux.co.jp>
	<20100906094416.GB13529@redhat.com>
	<20100908074327.GF28803@valinux.co.jp>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20100908074327.GF28803@valinux.co.jp>
Subject: [Qemu-devel] Re: [PATCH 07/14] msi: implemented msi.
List-Id: qemu-devel.nongnu.org
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/qemu-devel>,
	<mailto:qemu-devel-request@nongnu.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.nongnu.org/archive/html/qemu-devel>
List-Post: <mailto:qemu-devel@nongnu.org>
List-Help: <mailto:qemu-devel-request@nongnu.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/qemu-devel>,
	<mailto:qemu-devel-request@nongnu.org?subject=subscribe>
To: Isaku Yamahata <yamahata@valinux.co.jp>
Cc: skandasa@cisco.com, adhyas@gmail.com, etmartin@cisco.com, qemu-devel@nongnu.org, wexu2@cisco.com

On Wed, Sep 08, 2010 at 04:43:27PM +0900, Isaku Yamahata wrote:
> Thank you for through review.
> 
> On Mon, Sep 06, 2010 at 12:44:16PM +0300, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> > > +        uint32_t pending =
> > > +            pci_get_long(dev->config + msi_pending_reg(dev, is64bit));
> > > +        uint8_t vector;
> > > +
> > > +        /* deliver pending interrupts which are unmasked */
> > > +        for (vector = 0; vector < nr_vector; ++vector) {
> > > +            if (msi_is_masked(dev, vector) || !msi_test_bit(pending, vector)) {
> > 
> > I am confused. This is called after mask is updated, right?
> > So msi_is_masked means vector was masked, not unmasked?
> > I think the logic is reversed here.
> 
> I suppose you were missing the following continue.
> 
> 
> > > +                continue;
>                      ^^^^^^^^^ Here

I see. You are right. The block is small enough to maybe make it worthwhile
to revert the logic and avoid continue. It's up to you though,
there's no bug here.

> > > +            }
> > > +
> > > +            msi_clear_bit(&pending, vector);
> > > +            pci_set_long(dev->config + msi_pending_reg(dev, is64bit), pending);
> > > +            msi_notify(dev, vector);
> > > +        }
> > > +    }
> > > +}
> > > +
> > > +uint8_t msi_nr_allocated_vector(const PCIDevice *dev)
> 
> -- 
> yamahata