From: Shmulik Ladkani <shmulik.ladkani@ravellosystems.com>
To: Marcel Apfelbaum <marcel.apfelbaum@gmail.com>
Cc: Leonid Shatz <leonid.shatz@ravellosystems.com>,
"Michael S. Tsirkin" <mst@redhat.com>,
Jan Kiszka <jan.kiszka@siemens.com>,
Idan Brown <idan.brown@ravellosystems.com>,
Knut Omang <knut.omang@oracle.com>,
qemu-devel@nongnu.org, Hannes Reinecke <hare@suse.de>
Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH v1] pci: Don't register a specialized 'config_write' if default behavior is intended
Date: Wed, 17 Jun 2015 22:17:58 +0300 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20150617221758.529fae93@pixies> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <55813FCE.2090405@gmail.com>
Hi,
On Wed, 17 Jun 2015 12:37:18 +0300, marcel.apfelbaum@gmail.com wrote:
> BTW, did you notice a bug here? If yes, can you elaborate?
No, not a direct bug.
We noticed this while working on related code areas.
There's some history behind this.
In 95d6580 'msi: Invoke msi/msix_write_config from PCI core', the calls
to msi[x]_write_config have been added into pci_default_write_config,
and many specialized 'config_write' methods have been eliminated.
However there was a bug in 95d6580 - the values written to msi/msix
were always 0.
This was recently fixed in d7efb7e
'pci: avoid losing config updates to MSI/MSIX cap regs'
I assume that device authors were either (1) unware of the
generalization, thus kept invoking msi[x]_write_config explicitly, or
(2) trying to overcome the "lost writes".
Anyway, I'm no PCI expert here, but I assume the side-effect invoking
msi[x]_write_config twice (explicitly from the specialized config_write,
then implicitly from pci_default_write_config) isn't desired.
Meaning, the suggested patch follows the spirit of 95d6580.
Let me know if my analysis is flawed.
Regards,
Shmulik
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2015-06-17 19:18 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 8+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2015-06-16 8:24 [Qemu-devel] [PATCH v1] pci: Don't register a specialized 'config_write' if default behavior is intended Shmulik Ladkani
2015-06-17 9:36 ` Marcel Apfelbaum
2015-06-17 9:37 ` Marcel Apfelbaum
2015-06-17 19:17 ` Shmulik Ladkani [this message]
2015-06-21 8:20 ` Marcel Apfelbaum
2015-06-21 8:28 ` Shmulik Ladkani
2015-06-17 18:46 ` Shmulik Ladkani
2015-06-21 8:16 ` Marcel Apfelbaum
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20150617221758.529fae93@pixies \
--to=shmulik.ladkani@ravellosystems.com \
--cc=hare@suse.de \
--cc=idan.brown@ravellosystems.com \
--cc=jan.kiszka@siemens.com \
--cc=knut.omang@oracle.com \
--cc=leonid.shatz@ravellosystems.com \
--cc=marcel.apfelbaum@gmail.com \
--cc=mst@redhat.com \
--cc=qemu-devel@nongnu.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).