On Mon, 21 Mar 2016 20:45:27 +0800
Fam Zheng <f...@redhat.com> wrote:
> On Mon, 03/21 12:15, Cornelia Huck wrote:
> > On Mon, 21 Mar 2016 18:57:18 +0800
> > Fam Zheng <f...@redhat.com> wrote:
> >
> > > diff --git a/hw/virtio/virtio.c b/hw/virtio/virtio.c
> > > index 08275a9..47f8043 100644
> > > --- a/hw/virtio/virtio.c
> > > +++ b/hw/virtio/virtio.c
> > > @@ -1098,7 +1098,14 @@ void virtio_queue_notify_vq(VirtQueue *vq)
> > >
> > > void virtio_queue_notify(VirtIODevice *vdev, int n)
> > > {
> > > - virtio_queue_notify_vq(&vdev->vq[n]);
> > > + VirtQueue *vq = &vdev->vq[n];
> > > + EventNotifier *n;
> > > + n = virtio_queue_get_host_notifier(vq);
> > > + if (n) {
> >
> > Isn't that always true, even if the notifier has not been setup?
>
> You are right, this doesn't make a correct fix. But we can still do a quick
> test with this as the else branch should never be used with ioeventfd=on. Am I
> right?
>
> Fam
Won't we come through here for the very first kick, when we haven't
registered the ioeventfd with the kernel yet?
>
> >
> > > + event_notifier_set(n);
> > > + } else {
> > > + virtio_queue_notify_vq(vq);
> > > + }
> > > }
> > >
> > > uint16_t virtio_queue_vector(VirtIODevice *vdev, int n)
> > >
> > >
> >
>
