Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1753245AbcDZUIU (ORCPT ); Tue, 26 Apr 2016 16:08:20 -0400 Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([209.132.183.28]:41615 "EHLO mx1.redhat.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752166AbcDZUIS (ORCPT ); Tue, 26 Apr 2016 16:08:18 -0400 Date: Tue, 26 Apr 2016 14:08:16 -0600 From: Alex Williamson To: Feng Wu Cc: pbonzini@redhat.com, joro@8bytes.org, mtosatti@redhat.com, eric.auger@linaro.org, kvm@vger.kernel.org, iommu@lists.linux-foundation.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH v9 12/18] vfio: Register/unregister irq_bypass_producer Message-ID: <20160426140816.67b8b37c@t450s.home> In-Reply-To: <1442586596-5920-13-git-send-email-feng.wu@intel.com> References: <1442586596-5920-1-git-send-email-feng.wu@intel.com> <1442586596-5920-13-git-send-email-feng.wu@intel.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Greylist: Sender IP whitelisted, not delayed by milter-greylist-4.5.16 (mx1.redhat.com [10.5.110.39]); Tue, 26 Apr 2016 20:08:17 +0000 (UTC) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1471 Lines: 37 On Fri, 18 Sep 2015 22:29:50 +0800 Feng Wu wrote: @@ -360,6 +361,14 @@ static int vfio_msi_set_vector_signal(struct vfio_pci_device *vdev, > return ret; > } > > + vdev->ctx[vector].producer.token = trigger; > + vdev->ctx[vector].producer.irq = irq; > + ret = irq_bypass_register_producer(&vdev->ctx[vector].producer); > + if (unlikely(ret)) > + dev_info(&pdev->dev, > + "irq bypass producer (token %p) registeration fails: %d\n", > + vdev->ctx[vector].producer.token, ret); > + > vdev->ctx[vector].trigger = trigger; > > return 0; Digging back into the IRQ producer/consumer thing, I'm not sure how we should be handling a failure here, but it turns out that what we have is pretty sub-optimal. Any sort of testing on AMD hits this dev_info because kvm_arch_irq_bypass_add_producer() returns -EINVAL without kvm_x86_ops->update_pi_irte which is only implemented for vmx. Clearly we don't want to spew confusing error messages for a feature that does not exist. The easiest option is to simply make this error silent, but should registering a producer/consumer really fail due to a mismatch on the other end or should the __connect sequence fail silently, which both ends would know about (if they care) due to the add/del handshake between them? Perhaps for now we simply need a stable suitable fix to silence the dev_info above, but longer term, registration shouldn't fail for mismatches like this. Thoughts? Thanks, Alex