On Mon, 7 Dec 2015, Jan Beulich wrote:
> >>> On 07.12.15 at 13:41, wrote:
> > I know that in your opinion is superfluous, nonetheless could you please
> > add 2-3 lines of in-code comment right here, to explain what you are
> > doing with the check? Something like:
> >
> > /*
> > * Update the e
>>> On 07.12.15 at 13:41, wrote:
> I know that in your opinion is superfluous, nonetheless could you please
> add 2-3 lines of in-code comment right here, to explain what you are
> doing with the check? Something like:
>
> /*
> * Update the entry addr and data to the latest values only when the
>>> On 07.12.15 at 13:41, wrote:
> On Tue, 24 Nov 2015, Jan Beulich wrote:
>> @@ -332,6 +334,13 @@ static int xen_pt_msix_update_one(XenPCI
>>
>> pirq = entry->pirq;
>
> I know that in your opinion is superfluous, nonetheless could you please
> add 2-3 lines of in-code comment right here,
On Tue, 24 Nov 2015, Jan Beulich wrote:
> The remaining log message in pci_msix_write() is wrong, as there guest
> behavior may only appear to be wrong: For one, the old logic didn't
> take the mask-all bit into account. And then this shouldn't depend on
> host device state (i.e. the host may have
The remaining log message in pci_msix_write() is wrong, as there guest
behavior may only appear to be wrong: For one, the old logic didn't
take the mask-all bit into account. And then this shouldn't depend on
host device state (i.e. the host may have masked the entry without the
guest having done s
