Hi, On 4/28/21 4:36 PM, Marc Zyngier wrote: > On Wed, 28 Apr 2021 15:00:15 +0100, > Alexandru Elisei <alexandru.elisei@xxxxxxx> wrote: >> >> I interpret that as that an INVALL guarantees that a change is >> visible, but it the change can become visible even without the >> INVALL. > > Yes. Expecting the LPI to be delivered or not in the absence of an > invalidate when its configuration has been altered is wrong. The > architecture doesn't guarantee anything of the sort. > >> The test relies on the fact that changes to the LPI tables are not >> visible *under KVM* until the INVALL command, but that's not >> necessarily the case on real hardware. To match the spec, I think >> the test "dev2/eventid=20 still does not trigger any LPI" should be >> removed and the stats reset should take place before the >> configuration for LPI 8195 is set to the default. Yes I do agree with Alexandru and Marc after another reading of the spec. I initially thought the INVALL was the gate keeper for the new config but that sounds wrong. This test shall be removed then. Eric > > If that's what the test expects (I haven't tried to investigate), it > should be dropped completely, rather than trying to sidestep it for > TCG. > > Thanks, > > M. >
