On Fri, Jan 20, 2017 at 09:15:27AM +0000, Tian, Kevin wrote: > > From: Peter Xu [mailto:pet...@redhat.com] > > Sent: Friday, January 20, 2017 5:05 PM > > > > On Fri, Jan 20, 2017 at 08:22:14AM +0000, Tian, Kevin wrote: > > > > From: Peter Xu [mailto:pet...@redhat.com] > > > > Sent: Friday, January 13, 2017 11:06 AM > > > > > > > > Before we have int-remap, we need to bypass interrupt write requests. > > > > That's not necessary now - we have supported int-remap, and all the irq > > > > region requests should be redirected there. Cleaning up the block with > > > > an assertion instead. > > > > > > This comment is not accurate. According to code, the reason why you > > > can do such simplification is because we have standalone memory > > > region now for interrupt addresses. There should be nothing to do > > > with int-remap, which can be disabled by guest... Maybe the standalone > > > region was added when developing int-remap, but functionally they > > > are not related. :-) > > > > IMHO the above commit message is fairly clear. :-) > > > > But sure I can add some more emphasise like: > > > > "Before we have int-remap memory region, ..." > > > > Do you think it's okay? Or any better suggestion? > > > > (Just to mention that even guest disables IR, the MSI region will > > still be there.) > > > > My option is simple - this patch has nothing to do with int-remap. > It's not necessary, not because we supported int-remap. It's because > we have a standalone memory region for interrupt addresses, as you > described in the code. :-)
I really think they are the same thing... How about this: Now we have a standalone memory region for MSI, all the irq region requests should be redirected there. Cleaning up the block with an assertion instead. -- peterx