On 2011-09-06 10:46, Sasha Levin wrote: > On Tue, 2011-09-06 at 10:36 +0200, Jan Kiszka wrote: >> On 2011-09-06 10:12, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote: >>> On Tue, Sep 06, 2011 at 10:52:41AM +0300, Avi Kivity wrote: >>>>> >>>>> BTW, the same is also true for that optional per-vector masking of >>>>> legacy MSI. Are there devices in the field that actually support this? I >>>>> haven't found one so far and tend to consider this feature not worth >>>>> implementing. >>>> >>>> Don't know. I don't like implementing features on the basis of bug >>>> reports, though. On the other hand we can't really test it without >>>> a real device. >>> >>> Linux will use this capability if present. So >>> we could add support for an emulated device (e.g. e1000), >>> then test with nested virt once iommu emulation lands :) >> >> Yeah, would be kind of cool. Still, I would feel better having it tested >> against a real silicon as well. Also to prove that there is a real need. >> >> So, in case someone stumbles for such a device (bit 8 set in MSI control >> word), please let us know! > > Doesn't any device that supports MSI-X supports per-vector masking? > >>From the spec: > > "MSI and MSI-X each support per-vector masking. Per-vector masking is an > optional extension to MSI, and a standard feature with MSI-X" Right, but the cap flag still has to be set. Do you have any MSI-X device in reach? 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
