[Qemu-devel] mail to Paul Brook address@hidden bouncing address@hidden: Delivery Status Notification (Failure)]

[Michael S. Tsirkin]

Anyone knows what's going on?
If no mail should be sent to address@hidden,
let's add .mailcap so get_maintainer doesn't suggest this
address.

----- Forwarded message from address@hidden -----

Date: Mon, 30 Sep 2013 03:08:22 -0700
From: address@hidden
To: address@hidden
Subject: Delivery Status Notification (Failure)
Message-ID: <address@hidden>

This is an automatically generated Delivery Status Notification.

Delivery to the following recipients failed.

       address@hidden




Reporting-MTA: dns;svr-orw-fem-01.mgc.mentorg.com
Received-From-MTA: dns;relay1.mentorg.com
Arrival-Date: Mon, 30 Sep 2013 03:08:21 -0700

Final-Recipient: rfc822;address@hidden
Action: failed
Status: 5.7.1
X-Display-Name: Brook, Paul


Date: Mon, 30 Sep 2013 13:10:35 +0300
From: "Michael S. Tsirkin" <address@hidden>
To: Marcel Apfelbaum <address@hidden>
Cc: Paolo Bonzini <address@hidden>, "address@hidden"
 <address@hidden>, address@hidden, address@hidden,
 address@hidden, address@hidden, address@hidden,
 address@hidden, address@hidden, address@hidden,
 address@hidden, address@hidden
Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH 0/3] hw: set irq without selecting INTx pin
Message-ID: <address@hidden>
In-Reply-To: <address@hidden>

On Mon, Sep 30, 2013 at 12:43:20PM +0300, Marcel Apfelbaum wrote:
> On Mon, 2013-09-30 at 12:14 +0300, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> > On Mon, Sep 30, 2013 at 11:02:06AM +0200, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
> > > Il 30/09/2013 10:58, Michael S. Tsirkin ha scritto:
> > > >>> > > As a next step, can we make pci_set_irq non-inline and make
> > > >>> > > it call pci_irq_handler directly, and get rid of the irq field?
> > > >> > What irq field? 
> > > >     /* IRQ objects for the INTA-INTD pins.  */
> > > >     qemu_irq *irq;
> > > > 
> > > 
> > > That's still used by devices that use common code for PCI and sysbus
> > > versions (e.g. USB OHCI and EHCI).
> > > 
> > > Paolo
> > 
> > Well this work wouldn't be complete without
> > addressing them anyway.
> > 
> > These devices would have to create their own
> > irq in pci-specific code, along the lines of:
> 
> This irq field is used also in places where pci_set_irq(PCIDevice dev, level)
> can't infer the INTx:
> - PCIExpress: 
> qemu_set_irq(dev->irq[dev->exp.hpev_intx],dev->exp.hpev_notified);

Well the spec says, explicitly:
6.7.3.4.
 Software Notification of Hot-Plug Events
...
Note that all other interrupt sources within the same Function will
assert the same virtual INTx wire
when requesting service.

I read this to mean that this is a bug,
and it should simply use pci_set_irq like all other
devices.

> - vmxnet3 device: qemu_set_irq(d->irq[int_idx], 1);
> 
> What approach should be used here?
> 
> Thanks,
> Marcel
> > - s->irq = dev->irq[3];
> > + s->irq = qemu_allocate_irqs(pci_set_irq, dev, 1);
> > 
> > 
> > If there's more than one device like this, we should add
> > 
> > /* Return an irq that calls pci_set_irq internally */
> > qemu_irq *pci_allocate_irq(PCIDevice *);
> > 
> 
> 



----- End forwarded message -----