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) > > > > > > > > >