[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <49F6E313.7020502@redhat.com>
Date: Tue, 28 Apr 2009 14:05:55 +0300
From: Avi Kivity <avi@...hat.com>
To: Gregory Haskins <ghaskins@...ell.com>
CC: kvm@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
davidel@...ilserver.org
Subject: Re: [KVM PATCH v2 2/2] kvm: add support for irqfd via eventfd-notification
interface
Gregory Haskins wrote:
>>>> But eventfd_signal basically marries us to eventfd.
>>>>
>>>>
>>> Well, only if we expect the fd to have eventfd semantics. There are
>>> advantages to doing so, as we have discussed, because things like AIO
>>> can polymorhpically signal an interrupt without even knowing whats
>>> behind the eventfd. But this isn't a strict requirement to support
>>> AIO. Really all we need is a way for both kernel and userspace to
>>> signal. Perhaps I should export an "irqfd_signal()" function from kvm,
>>> which today will map to eventfd_signal(), and tomorrow to ??. I don't
>>> think using f_ops->write() is an option for in-kernel signaling, so we
>>> need some kind of interface here.
>>>
>>> Does that sound reasonable?
>>>
>>>
>> irqfd_signal() ties the user of irqfd to kvm. I want this user to be
>> independent of kvm; it should work with eventfd, kvm's eventfd
>> lookalike (if we move away from eventfd) or pipes.
>>
>
> So what is your proposal for such interface?
>
>
->write().
--
Do not meddle in the internals of kernels, for they are subtle and quick to panic.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists