> From: Chatre, Reinette <reinette.chatre@xxxxxxxxx> > Sent: Friday, March 17, 2023 7:38 AM > > > Based on above, there really can never be an error if we expect the > > device to work, so I think there's a misread of the current status. > > Dynamic MSI-X support should simply reduce the disruption and chance > > of lost interrupts at the device, but the points where we risk that > > the host cannot provide the configuration we need are the same. > > Thank you very much Alex. In this case, please do consider this > submission as a submission for inclusion. I'd be happy to resubmit > without the "RFC" prefix if that is preferred. > With that do we still want to keep the error behavior for MSI? If no patch5 can be simplified e.g. no need of vfio_irq_ctx_range_allocated() and MSI/MSI-X error behaviors become consistent.
