[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <201004011224.45336.pugs@lyon-about.com>
Date: Thu, 1 Apr 2010 12:24:45 -0700
From: Tom Lyon <pugs@...n-about.com>
To: Avi Kivity <avi@...hat.com>
Cc: kvm@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
"Hans J. Koch" <hjk@...utronix.de>, gregkh@...e.de
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/1] uio_pci_generic: extensions to allow access for non-privileged processes
On Thursday 01 April 2010 09:10:57 am Avi Kivity wrote:
> On 04/01/2010 07:06 PM, Tom Lyon wrote:
> > On Thursday 01 April 2010 08:54:14 am Avi Kivity wrote:
> >> On 04/01/2010 06:39 PM, Tom Lyon wrote:
> >>>>> - support for MSI and MSI-X interrupts (the intel 82599 VFs support
> >>>>> only MSI-X)
> >>>>
> >>>> How does a userspace program receive those interrupts?
> >>>
> >>> Same as other UIO drivers - by read()ing an event counter.
> >>
> >> IIRC the usual event counter is /dev/uioX, what's your event counter
> >> now?
> >
> > Exact same mechanism.
>
> But there are multiple msi-x interrupts, how do you know which one
> triggered?
You don't. This would suck for KVM, I guess, but we'd need major rework of the
generic UIO stuff to have a separate event channel for each MSI-X.
For my purposes, collapsing all the MSI-Xs into one MSI-look-alike is fine,
because I'd be using MSI anyways if I could. The weird Intel 82599 VF only
supports MSI-X.
So one big question is - do we expand the whole UIO framework for KVM
requirements, or do we split off either KVM or non-VM into a separate driver?
Hans or Greg - care to opine?
--
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