From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Received: from [140.186.70.92] (port=43622 helo=eggs.gnu.org)
	by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1PDHWU-0008Jk-Re
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Tue, 02 Nov 2010 10:08:11 -0400
Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71)
	(envelope-from <mst@redhat.com>) id 1PDHWT-0000K3-6x
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Tue, 02 Nov 2010 10:07:38 -0400
Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([209.132.183.28]:35398)
	by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71)
	(envelope-from <mst@redhat.com>) id 1PDHWT-0000Jw-05
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Tue, 02 Nov 2010 10:07:37 -0400
Date: Tue, 2 Nov 2010 16:07:36 +0200
From: "Michael S. Tsirkin" <mst@redhat.com>
Message-ID: <20101102140736.GB29373@redhat.com>
References: <20101102053544.10424.42769.stgit@s20.home>
	<20101102053751.10424.7525.stgit@s20.home>
	<20101102092508.GA3390@redhat.com> <1288706438.3045.7.camel@x201>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <1288706438.3045.7.camel@x201>
Subject: [Qemu-devel] Re: [PATCH 3/3] msi: Store the capability size in
	PCIDevice
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: Alex Williamson <alex.williamson@redhat.com>
Cc: yamahata@valinux.co.jp, qemu-devel@nongnu.org

On Tue, Nov 02, 2010 at 08:00:38AM -0600, Alex Williamson wrote:
> On Tue, 2010-11-02 at 11:25 +0200, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> > On Mon, Nov 01, 2010 at 11:37:53PM -0600, Alex Williamson wrote:
> > > Avoid needing to get the MSI capability flags every time we need to
> > > check the capability length.  This also makes it accessible outside
> > > of msi.c, making it easier for users to filter config space writes
> > > using msi_cap and msi_cap_size.
> > 
> > I think for this last use-case, we are better off with returning a
> > boolean from msi_write_config which tells us whether the write is in
> > range. This has the advantage in that it will also work well for other
> > capabilities. Or second best, if that is insufficient for some reason,
> > export an msi_cap_size function.
> 
> Returning whether the write was in range isn't enough.  For device
> assignment, I need to know whether the capability was enabled or
> disabled.  This currently means checking the enable state before and
> after calling msi_write_config and doing the appropriate backend setup.

Sounds good. Why does this mean you need the capability size?
	bool was_enabled = msi_enabled(dev);
	msi_write_config(..)
	if (was_enabled != msi_enabled(dev)) {
	}

> I think the only way I could blindly call the msi/x write config
> routines is if we init the capability with enable/disable callbacks.
> I'd be ok with an msi_cap_size function if we don't want to go that far
> too.  What do you prefer?  Thanks,
> 
> Alex