Michael Kelley <[email protected]> writes: > From: Naman Jain <[email protected]> Sent: Sunday, September 6, > 2026 11:51 PM >> diff --git a/arch/x86/hyperv/irqdomain.c b/arch/x86/hyperv/irqdomain.c >> index b3ad50a874dca..1e273d7d6c5b3 100644 >> --- a/arch/x86/hyperv/irqdomain.c >> +++ b/arch/x86/hyperv/irqdomain.c >> @@ -304,6 +304,7 @@ static struct irq_chip hv_pci_msi_controller = { >> .irq_ack = irq_chip_ack_parent, >> .irq_compose_msi_msg = hv_irq_compose_msi_msg, >> .irq_set_affinity = irq_chip_set_affinity_parent, >> + .irq_retrigger = irq_chip_retrigger_hierarchy, >> }; > > There's a slight discrepancy compared with the guest pci-hyperv.c driver, > where setting the .irq_retrigger function is done dynamically in > hv_pcie_init_dev_msi_info() instead of statically. The parallel here would > be to set it in hv_init_dev_msi_info(). But given that Patch 3 of series > removes setting .irq_retrigger in both cases, the discrepancy shouldn't > really matter. > > If there's a reason to prefer one approach vs. the other, I don't know > what that reason is.
hv_pcie_init_dev_msi_info() is for the MSI device's interrupt domain, while this patch is setting it for the parent's interrupt domain. The former is what we need. Nam
