On 2012-05-28 15:39, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote: > On Mon, May 28, 2012 at 03:29:58PM +0200, Jan Kiszka wrote: >> On 2012-05-28 15:21, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote: >>> On Mon, May 28, 2012 at 02:51:25PM +0200, Jan Kiszka wrote: >>>> On 2012-05-28 14:39, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote: >>>>> On Fri, May 25, 2012 at 11:02:13AM -0300, Jan Kiszka wrote: >>>>>> According to Alexey, the T310 does not properly support INTx masking as >>>>>> it fails to keep the PCI_STATUS_INTERRUPT bit updated once the interrupt >>>>>> is masked. Mark this adapter as broken so that pci_intx_mask_supported >>>>>> won't report it as compatible. >>>>>> >>>>>> Reported-by: Alexey Kardashevskiy <aik@xxxxxxxxx> >>>>>> Signed-off-by: Jan Kiszka <jan.kiszka@xxxxxx> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Just a thought: would be nice to have a way to discover >>>>> the quirk was activated. Add an attribute so that >>>>> userspace can detect and report this properly to users? >>>>> Or just log a warning message ... >>>> >>>> pr_notice_once? >>> >>> OK IMO. >>> >>>> A flag for userspace would be significantly more >>>> complicated (and not PCI layer hands). >>> >>> Why not? I meant e.g. an attribute in pci-sysfs. >> >> Possible. But what is the preferred way of doing this? Are there any >> precedences? >> >> Jan >> > > E.g. a reset attribute is there only if device reset is supported. > I don't insist on this - merely asking how does userspace report > an attempt to share IRQs and whether the reason is > discoverable in some way. Well, so far there is no attribute associated with INTx masking that we could hide to express this. 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
