From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: "Jan Beulich" <JBeulich@novell.com>
Subject: set_msi_affinity() vs. pci_restore_msi_state()
Date: Fri, 05 Mar 2010 16:03:52 +0000
Message-ID: <4B9139780200007800033011@vpn.id2.novell.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Return-path: <xen-devel-bounces@lists.xensource.com>
Content-Disposition: inline
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.xensource.com/mailman/listinfo/xen-devel>,
	<mailto:xen-devel-request@lists.xensource.com?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Post: <mailto:xen-devel@lists.xensource.com>
List-Help: <mailto:xen-devel-request@lists.xensource.com?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.xensource.com/mailman/listinfo/xen-devel>,
	<mailto:xen-devel-request@lists.xensource.com?subject=subscribe>
Sender: xen-devel-bounces@lists.xensource.com
Errors-To: xen-devel-bounces@lists.xensource.com
To: xiantao.zhang@intel.com
Cc: xen-devel@lists.xensource.com
List-Id: xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org

Isn't the fact that the former updates the MSI message data without
updating the copy of it in memory a problem for the latter, i.e. won't
the latter restore stale information? While the problem (if there is one)
existed before c/s 20073, the fact that the vector now can change
seems to make the potential effect of this much worse.

Thanks, Jan