On Fri, 18 Sep 2015 22:29:50 +0800 Feng Wu <feng...@intel.com> wrote:
@@ -360,6 +361,14 @@ static int vfio_msi_set_vector_signal(struct vfio_pci_device *vdev, > return ret; > } > > + vdev->ctx[vector].producer.token = trigger; > + vdev->ctx[vector].producer.irq = irq; > + ret = irq_bypass_register_producer(&vdev->ctx[vector].producer); > + if (unlikely(ret)) > + dev_info(&pdev->dev, > + "irq bypass producer (token %p) registeration fails: %d\n", > + vdev->ctx[vector].producer.token, ret); > + > vdev->ctx[vector].trigger = trigger; > > return 0; Digging back into the IRQ producer/consumer thing, I'm not sure how we should be handling a failure here, but it turns out that what we have is pretty sub-optimal. Any sort of testing on AMD hits this dev_info because kvm_arch_irq_bypass_add_producer() returns -EINVAL without kvm_x86_ops->update_pi_irte which is only implemented for vmx. Clearly we don't want to spew confusing error messages for a feature that does not exist. The easiest option is to simply make this error silent, but should registering a producer/consumer really fail due to a mismatch on the other end or should the __connect sequence fail silently, which both ends would know about (if they care) due to the add/del handshake between them? Perhaps for now we simply need a stable suitable fix to silence the dev_info above, but longer term, registration shouldn't fail for mismatches like this. Thoughts? Thanks, Alex
