Am 02.11.2010 19:54, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote: > On Tue, Nov 02, 2010 at 07:51:39PM +0100, Jan Kiszka wrote: >> Am 02.11.2010 19:48, Jan Kiszka wrote: >>> Am 02.11.2010 19:40, Jan Kiszka wrote: >>>>>>>> @@ -199,6 +343,13 @@ static void kvm_free_assigned_device(struct kvm *kvm, >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> pci_reset_function(assigned_dev->dev); >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> + /* >>>>>>>> + * Unmask the IRQ at PCI level once the reset is done - the next user >>>>>>>> + * may not expect the IRQ being masked. >>>>>>>> + */ >>>>>>>> + if (assigned_dev->pci_2_3) >>>>>>>> + pci_2_3_irq_unmask(assigned_dev->dev); >>>>>>>> + >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Doesn't pci_reset_function clear mask bit? It seems to ... >>>>>> >>>>>> I was left with non-functional devices for the host here if I was not >>>>>> doing this. Need to recheck, but I think it was required. >>>>> >>>>> Interesting. Could you check why please? >>>>> >>>> >>>> Can't reproduce anymore. This was early code, maybe affected by some >>>> bits or buts that no longer exist. >>>> >>>> Spec says it's cleared on reset, so I removed those lines now. >>>> >>> >>> Hmpf, it just happened again: Guest was using my ath9k, I killed the >>> guest, lspci says DisINTx+. Strange. Is anyone (qemu) restoring the >>> config space after the reset, bringing the disable bit back? >> >> Or does the kernel cache the control word? >> >> Jan > > Maybe it does, need to dig in drivers/pci. If it does this > might have other implications. OK, that mystery is resolved now: pci_reset_function saves & restores the device state. Jan -- Siemens AG, Corporate Technology, CT T DE IT 1 Corporate Competence Center Embedded Linux -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe kvm" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
