On Tue, Nov 04, 2008 at 01:57:56PM +0200, Avi Kivity wrote: > Sheng Yang wrote: >> Yes, in theory, we got a little trouble, but not that much. >> >> The mechanism based on a assumption: every time guest got a interrupt, >> it would deassert the interrupt source sooner or later. So we take the >> Ack action as the same as deassert the IRQ line here (unmasked the >> IRQ). >> >> So the biggest known issue is, after guest got the interrupt, rather >> than deassert it, guest driver took the advantage of level triggered >> interrupt, and just want to deassert after it receive it for e.g. 10 >> times. Then we would got the trouble. But it's so tricky and we don't >> know any device by now take this way yet. Of course they can, so we >> also suggest to use a whitelist/blacklist for this approach. But this >> should work in most condition. >> >> Yeah, it's aggressive, but we think it's reasonable, and tested OK (in >> my limited environment). Also I heard that Hyper-V or Vmware did this. >> >> Any more concerns? Hope we didn't neglect something. >> > > Please add a module parameter to disable msi->pciirq conversion in that > case. So if someone runs into trouble, we can try out the alternative.
Yes of course. :) -- regards Yang, Sheng > -- > error compiling committee.c: too many arguments to function > > -- > To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe kvm" in > the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] > More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe kvm" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
