| Message ID | cbb603304713eeb0ad413a98ab7705cb28dcc428.1303554218.git.jan.kiszka@web.de (mailing list archive) |
|---|---|
| State | New, archived |
| Headers | show |
On Sat, Apr 23, 2011 at 12:23:38PM +0200, Jan Kiszka wrote: > From: Jan Kiszka <jan.kiszka@siemens.com> > > Testing support and allocating a GSI for an MSI message is required both > for MSI and MSI-X. At this chance, drop the aging version warning. > > Signed-off-by: Jan Kiszka <jan.kiszka@siemens.com> No objection, but I do note that this means running on an old kernel will lead to a silent failure. stderr output is not in fact much better: I think we should check the capability in msix_init. Care coding this up? > --- > hw/msix.c | 13 ------------- > qemu-kvm.c | 11 +++++++++++ > 2 files changed, 11 insertions(+), 13 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/hw/msix.c b/hw/msix.c > index 1bdffb6..8c8bc18 100644 > --- a/hw/msix.c > +++ b/hw/msix.c > @@ -113,19 +113,6 @@ static int kvm_msix_vector_add(PCIDevice *dev, unsigned vector) > KVMMsiMessage *kmm = dev->msix_irq_entries + vector; > int r; > > - if (!kvm_has_gsi_routing()) { > - fprintf(stderr, "Warning: no MSI-X support found. " > - "At least kernel 2.6.30 is required for MSI-X support.\n" > - ); > - return -EOPNOTSUPP; > - } > - > - r = kvm_get_irq_route_gsi(); > - if (r < 0) { > - fprintf(stderr, "%s: kvm_get_irq_route_gsi failed: %s\n", __func__, strerror(-r)); > - return r; > - } > - kmm->gsi = r; > kvm_msix_message_from_vector(dev, vector, kmm); > r = kvm_msi_message_add(kmm); > if (r < 0) { > diff --git a/qemu-kvm.c b/qemu-kvm.c > index 9cbc109..7317f87 100644 > --- a/qemu-kvm.c > +++ b/qemu-kvm.c > @@ -984,6 +984,17 @@ static void kvm_msi_routing_entry(struct kvm_irq_routing_entry *e, > int kvm_msi_message_add(KVMMsiMessage *msg) > { > struct kvm_irq_routing_entry e; > + int ret; > + > + if (!kvm_has_gsi_routing()) { > + return -EOPNOTSUPP; > + } > + > + ret = kvm_get_irq_route_gsi(); > + if (ret < 0) { > + return ret; > + } > + msg->gsi = ret; > > kvm_msi_routing_entry(&e, msg); > return kvm_add_routing_entry(&e); > -- > 1.7.1 -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe kvm" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
On 2011-04-27 14:54, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote: > On Sat, Apr 23, 2011 at 12:23:38PM +0200, Jan Kiszka wrote: >> From: Jan Kiszka <jan.kiszka@siemens.com> >> >> Testing support and allocating a GSI for an MSI message is required both >> for MSI and MSI-X. At this chance, drop the aging version warning. >> >> Signed-off-by: Jan Kiszka <jan.kiszka@siemens.com> > > No objection, but I do note that this means running on an old > kernel will lead to a silent failure. Shouldn't be silent: The caller of msi_vector_use should check and process the error (virtio should even forward it to guest IIUC). > stderr output is not in fact much better: I think we should > check the capability in msix_init. Care coding this up? I think the motivation to check on vector activation is that devices and guests without a need for MSI should not cause a failure if MSI is unsupported by KVM. Jan
On Wed, Apr 27, 2011 at 03:29:15PM +0200, Jan Kiszka wrote: > On 2011-04-27 14:54, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote: > > On Sat, Apr 23, 2011 at 12:23:38PM +0200, Jan Kiszka wrote: > >> From: Jan Kiszka <jan.kiszka@siemens.com> > >> > >> Testing support and allocating a GSI for an MSI message is required both > >> for MSI and MSI-X. At this chance, drop the aging version warning. > >> > >> Signed-off-by: Jan Kiszka <jan.kiszka@siemens.com> > > > > No objection, but I do note that this means running on an old > > kernel will lead to a silent failure. > > Shouldn't be silent: The caller of msi_vector_use should check and > process the error (virtio should even forward it to guest IIUC). It does, but the msi/msix spec does not allow this so not all guest OSes can use this extended reporting. > > stderr output is not in fact much better: I think we should > > check the capability in msix_init. Care coding this up? > > I think the motivation to check on vector activation is that devices and > guests without a need for MSI should not cause a failure if MSI is > unsupported by KVM. > > Jan IMO it's better not to report MSI capability in this setup. > -- > 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@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
diff --git a/hw/msix.c b/hw/msix.c index 1bdffb6..8c8bc18 100644 --- a/hw/msix.c +++ b/hw/msix.c @@ -113,19 +113,6 @@ static int kvm_msix_vector_add(PCIDevice *dev, unsigned vector) KVMMsiMessage *kmm = dev->msix_irq_entries + vector; int r; - if (!kvm_has_gsi_routing()) { - fprintf(stderr, "Warning: no MSI-X support found. " - "At least kernel 2.6.30 is required for MSI-X support.\n" - ); - return -EOPNOTSUPP; - } - - r = kvm_get_irq_route_gsi(); - if (r < 0) { - fprintf(stderr, "%s: kvm_get_irq_route_gsi failed: %s\n", __func__, strerror(-r)); - return r; - } - kmm->gsi = r; kvm_msix_message_from_vector(dev, vector, kmm); r = kvm_msi_message_add(kmm); if (r < 0) { diff --git a/qemu-kvm.c b/qemu-kvm.c index 9cbc109..7317f87 100644 --- a/qemu-kvm.c +++ b/qemu-kvm.c @@ -984,6 +984,17 @@ static void kvm_msi_routing_entry(struct kvm_irq_routing_entry *e, int kvm_msi_message_add(KVMMsiMessage *msg) { struct kvm_irq_routing_entry e; + int ret; + + if (!kvm_has_gsi_routing()) { + return -EOPNOTSUPP; + } + + ret = kvm_get_irq_route_gsi(); + if (ret < 0) { + return ret; + } + msg->gsi = ret; kvm_msi_routing_entry(&e, msg); return kvm_add_routing_entry(&e);