Hi Kevin, On 3/16/2023 4:52 PM, Tian, Kevin wrote: >> 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. Thank you. Yes, if I understand correctly MSI and MSI-X error handling can become consistent. I'll modify patch 5 to remove vfio_irq_ctx_range_allocated(). Reinette
