> From: Chatre, Reinette <reinette.chatre@intel.com>
> Sent: Friday, March 17, 2023 7:38 AM
> 
> > Based on above, there really can never be an error if we expect the
> > device to work, so I think there's a misread of the current status.
> > Dynamic MSI-X support should simply reduce the disruption and chance
> > of lost interrupts at the device, but the points where we risk that
> > the host cannot provide the configuration we need are the same.
> 
> Thank you very much Alex. In this case, please do consider this
> submission as a submission for inclusion. I'd be happy to resubmit
> without the "RFC" prefix if that is preferred.
> 

With that do we still want to keep the error behavior for MSI?

If no patch5 can be simplified e.g. no need of vfio_irq_ctx_range_allocated()
and MSI/MSI-X error behaviors become consistent.

Hi Kevin,

On 3/16/2023 4:52 PM, Tian, Kevin wrote:
>> From: Chatre, Reinette <reinette.chatre@intel.com>
>> Sent: Friday, March 17, 2023 7:38 AM
>>
>>> Based on above, there really can never be an error if we expect the
>>> device to work, so I think there's a misread of the current status.
>>> Dynamic MSI-X support should simply reduce the disruption and chance
>>> of lost interrupts at the device, but the points where we risk that
>>> the host cannot provide the configuration we need are the same.
>>
>> Thank you very much Alex. In this case, please do consider this
>> submission as a submission for inclusion. I'd be happy to resubmit
>> without the "RFC" prefix if that is preferred.
>>
> 
> With that do we still want to keep the error behavior for MSI?
> 
> If no patch5 can be simplified e.g. no need of vfio_irq_ctx_range_allocated()
> and MSI/MSI-X error behaviors become consistent.

Thank you. Yes, if I understand correctly MSI and MSI-X error handling
can become consistent. I'll modify patch 5 to remove
vfio_irq_ctx_range_allocated().

Reinette