On Fri, 2014-12-12 at 10:24 +, Jan Beulich wrote:
> Commit 545607eb3c ("x86: fix various issues with handling guest IRQs")
> wasn't really consistent in one respect: The granting of access to an
> IRQ shouldn't assume the pIRQ->IRQ translation to be the same in both
> domains. In fact it is wro
On Fri, 2014-12-12 at 11:03 +, Jan Beulich wrote:
> >>> On 12.12.14 at 11:49, wrote:
> > On 12/12/14 10:24, Jan Beulich wrote:
> >> Commit 545607eb3c ("x86: fix various issues with handling guest IRQs")
> >> wasn't really consistent in one respect: The granting of access to an
> >> IRQ shouldn
>>> On 12.12.14 at 11:49, wrote:
> On 12/12/14 10:24, Jan Beulich wrote:
>> Commit 545607eb3c ("x86: fix various issues with handling guest IRQs")
>> wasn't really consistent in one respect: The granting of access to an
>> IRQ shouldn't assume the pIRQ->IRQ translation to be the same in both
>> do
On 12/12/14 10:24, Jan Beulich wrote:
> Commit 545607eb3c ("x86: fix various issues with handling guest IRQs")
> wasn't really consistent in one respect: The granting of access to an
> IRQ shouldn't assume the pIRQ->IRQ translation to be the same in both
> domains. In fact it is wrong to assume tha
Commit 545607eb3c ("x86: fix various issues with handling guest IRQs")
wasn't really consistent in one respect: The granting of access to an
IRQ shouldn't assume the pIRQ->IRQ translation to be the same in both
domains. In fact it is wrong to assume that a translation is already/
still in place at
