From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:52030)
	by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71)
	(envelope-from <famz@redhat.com>) id 1ai9Vn-0003Sc-C8
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Mon, 21 Mar 2016 19:45:28 -0400
Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71)
	(envelope-from <famz@redhat.com>) id 1ai9Vm-0002Hq-Hj
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Mon, 21 Mar 2016 19:45:27 -0400
Date: Tue, 22 Mar 2016 07:45:19 +0800
From: Fam Zheng <famz@redhat.com>
Message-ID: <20160321234519.GA24609@ad.usersys.redhat.com>
References: <56E9425C.8030201@de.ibm.com> <56E957AD.2050005@redhat.com>
	<56E961EA.4090908@de.ibm.com> <56E9638B.5090204@redhat.com>
	<20160317003906.GA23821@ad.usersys.redhat.com>
	<56EA8EEE.2020801@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
	<20160321105718.GA7710@ad.usersys.redhat.com>
	<20160321121533.7db7d097.cornelia.huck@de.ibm.com>
	<20160321124527.GA21834@ad.usersys.redhat.com>
	<20160321140234.22b0ac41.cornelia.huck@de.ibm.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20160321140234.22b0ac41.cornelia.huck@de.ibm.com>
Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH 0/4] Tweaks around virtio-blk start/stop
List-Id: <qemu-devel.nongnu.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/options/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: <https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/qemu-devel>,
	<mailto:qemu-devel-request@nongnu.org?subject=subscribe>
To: Cornelia Huck <cornelia.huck@de.ibm.com>
Cc: Kevin Wolf <kwolf@redhat.com>, qemu-block@nongnu.org, "Michael S. Tsirkin" <mst@redhat.com>, qemu-devel@nongnu.org, tu bo <tubo@linux.vnet.ibm.com>, Stefan Hajnoczi <stefanha@redhat.com>, Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@redhat.com>, Christian Borntraeger <borntraeger@de.ibm.com>

On Mon, 03/21 14:02, Cornelia Huck wrote:
> On Mon, 21 Mar 2016 20:45:27 +0800
> Fam Zheng <famz@redhat.com> wrote:
> 
> > On Mon, 03/21 12:15, Cornelia Huck wrote:
> > > On Mon, 21 Mar 2016 18:57:18 +0800
> > > Fam Zheng <famz@redhat.com> wrote:
> > > 
> > > > diff --git a/hw/virtio/virtio.c b/hw/virtio/virtio.c
> > > > index 08275a9..47f8043 100644
> > > > --- a/hw/virtio/virtio.c
> > > > +++ b/hw/virtio/virtio.c
> > > > @@ -1098,7 +1098,14 @@ void virtio_queue_notify_vq(VirtQueue *vq)
> > > > 
> > > >  void virtio_queue_notify(VirtIODevice *vdev, int n)
> > > >  {
> > > > -    virtio_queue_notify_vq(&vdev->vq[n]);
> > > > +    VirtQueue *vq = &vdev->vq[n];
> > > > +    EventNotifier *n;
> > > > +    n = virtio_queue_get_host_notifier(vq);
> > > > +    if (n) {
> > > 
> > > Isn't that always true, even if the notifier has not been setup?
> > 
> > You are right, this doesn't make a correct fix. But we can still do a quick
> > test with this as the else branch should never be used with ioeventfd=on. Am I
> > right?
> > 
> > Fam
> 
> Won't we come through here for the very first kick, when we haven't
> registered the ioeventfd with the kernel yet?
> 

The ioeventfd in virtio-ccw is registered in the main loop when
VIRTIO_CONFIG_S_DRIVER_OK is set, so I think the first kick is okay.

Fam