On Wed, May 31, 2017 at 02:55:59PM +0200, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
>
>
> On 31/05/2017 11:50, Peter Xu wrote:
> > On Wed, May 31, 2017 at 05:42:34PM +0800, Peter Xu wrote:
> >> A whitelist for it does not really makes sense. Let's remove it and
> >> then we can introduce a blacklist when really
On 31/05/2017 11:50, Peter Xu wrote:
> On Wed, May 31, 2017 at 05:42:34PM +0800, Peter Xu wrote:
>> A whitelist for it does not really makes sense. Let's remove it and
>> then we can introduce a blacklist when really needed, with msi_broken.
>> That's patch 1.
> Ok this paragraph does not make
On Wed, May 31, 2017 at 05:42:34PM +0800, Peter Xu wrote:
> A whitelist for it does not really makes sense. Let's remove it and
> then we can introduce a blacklist when really needed, with msi_broken.
> That's patch 1.
Ok this paragraph does not make sense if not mentioning what's "it"...
Please
A whitelist for it does not really makes sense. Let's remove it and
then we can introduce a blacklist when really needed, with msi_broken.
That's patch 1.
Then, I let the msi_init() always success in patch 2, along with it I
removed caller checks around it.
The goal of this series is to fix the
