This looks accurate to me. Is there other review required from someone in doc?

Bartek is currently out, but I'll approve it in his absence for now. It'd be nice to know why that function is unused.

In D39457#900952, @jhb wrote:

It may be that the current interrupt code has a race in bus_teardown_intr() when used with filters in that we can't ensure that bus_teardown_intr() will block if the filter handler is running on another core, but in that case that's the real race to fix.

Committed in rG35105900c65bb5adcde05d37ae34ad006970d4f9.

In D38929#893145, @jhibbits wrote:

@erj can you fix this the right way given what you also wrote in your now deleted comment? I could just revert the original change to the line if that's all that's needed.

In D38929#886387, @jhibbits wrote:

@erj was the original change to this intended? Before the change it was:

if ((scctx->isc_capenable & IFCAP_RXCSUM) != 0)

From the rest of the file it looks unintended, but I can't tell.

Committed in rG8923de59054358980102ea5acda6c6dd58273957.

In D38376#872298, @pkubaj wrote:

The PR mentions only this one, the others were probably not tested. Do you think it would be appriopriate to add them anyway?

What about everything between I219 (19) and (22)? :p

In D38285#871102, @jhb wrote:

It would be nice to make these dynamically sized rather than a fixed-sized array. However, reviewing and integrating @kib's patch to use the ACPI_DMAR driver for this instead is probably the better long-term fix.

I think this is reasonable.

I pushed the DDP update part, so this needs to be rebased.

I think this looks good.

Committed in linked commit.