Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S933979AbdDEVi3 (ORCPT ); Wed, 5 Apr 2017 17:38:29 -0400 Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([209.132.183.28]:57280 "EHLO mx1.redhat.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1755800AbdDEViX (ORCPT ); Wed, 5 Apr 2017 17:38:23 -0400 DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.3.2 mx1.redhat.com B26C6C057FA4 Authentication-Results: ext-mx08.extmail.prod.ext.phx2.redhat.com; dmarc=none (p=none dis=none) header.from=redhat.com Authentication-Results: ext-mx08.extmail.prod.ext.phx2.redhat.com; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=mst@redhat.com DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 mx1.redhat.com B26C6C057FA4 Date: Thu, 6 Apr 2017 00:38:18 +0300 From: "Michael S. Tsirkin" To: Christoph Hellwig Cc: Mike Galbraith , Thorsten Leemhuis , virtio-dev@lists.oasis-open.org, Linux Kernel Mailing List , rjones@redhat.com Subject: Re: Random guest crashes since 5c34d002dcc7 ("virtio_pci: use shared interrupts for virtqueues") Message-ID: <20170406003349-mutt-send-email-mst@kernel.org> References: <1491327646.4253.2.camel@gmx.de> <1491328476.4253.10.camel@gmx.de> <20170404213702-mutt-send-email-mst@kernel.org> <1491361749.4536.69.camel@gmx.de> <20170405060806-mutt-send-email-mst@kernel.org> <1491362670.4536.78.camel@gmx.de> <1491363606.4536.80.camel@gmx.de> <20170405065123-mutt-send-email-mst@kernel.org> <1491366290.4536.114.camel@gmx.de> <20170405062934.GA26528@lst.de> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20170405062934.GA26528@lst.de> X-Greylist: Sender IP whitelisted, not delayed by milter-greylist-4.5.16 (mx1.redhat.com [10.5.110.32]); Wed, 05 Apr 2017 21:38:23 +0000 (UTC) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 964 Lines: 22 On Wed, Apr 05, 2017 at 08:29:34AM +0200, Christoph Hellwig wrote: > On Wed, Apr 05, 2017 at 06:24:50AM +0200, Mike Galbraith wrote: > > On Wed, 2017-04-05 at 06:51 +0300, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote: > > > > > Any issues at all left with this tree? > > > In particular any regressions? > > > > Nothing blatantly obvious in a testdrive that lasted a couple minutes. > > I'd have to beat on it a bit to look for things beyond the reported, > > but can't afford to do that right now. > > Can you check where the issues appear? I'd like to do a pure revert > of the shared interrupts, but that three has a lot more in it.. What I did is a revert the refactorings while keeping the affinity API - we can safely postpone them until the next release without loss of functionality. But that's on top of my testing tree so it has unrelated stuff as well. I'm rather confident they aren't fixing the issues but I'll prepare a bugfix-only tree now for testing. -- MST