[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <E959C4978C3B6342920538CF579893F0025D7E3F@SHSMSX104.ccr.corp.intel.com>
Date: Mon, 29 Jun 2015 13:01:27 +0000
From: "Wu, Feng" <feng.wu@...el.com>
To: Joerg Roedel <joro@...tes.org>
CC: Alex Williamson <alex.williamson@...hat.com>,
Eric Auger <eric.auger@...aro.org>,
Avi Kivity <avi.kivity@...il.com>,
"kvm@...r.kernel.org" <kvm@...r.kernel.org>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
"pbonzini@...hat.com" <pbonzini@...hat.com>,
"mtosatti@...hat.com" <mtosatti@...hat.com>,
"Wu, Feng" <feng.wu@...el.com>
Subject: RE: [v4 08/16] KVM: kvm-vfio: User API for IRQ forwarding
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Joerg Roedel [mailto:joro@...tes.org]
> Sent: Monday, June 29, 2015 5:23 PM
> To: Wu, Feng
> Cc: Alex Williamson; Eric Auger; Avi Kivity; kvm@...r.kernel.org;
> linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org; pbonzini@...hat.com; mtosatti@...hat.com
> Subject: Re: [v4 08/16] KVM: kvm-vfio: User API for IRQ forwarding
>
> On Mon, Jun 29, 2015 at 09:14:54AM +0000, Wu, Feng wrote:
> > Do you mean updating the hardware IRTEs for all the entries in the irq
> > routing table, no matter whether it is the updated one?
>
> Right, that's what I mean. It seems wrong to me to work around the API
> interface by creating a diff between the old and the new routing table.
Yes the original usage model here doesn't care about the diff between
the old and new, it is a little intrusive to add the comparison code here.
> It is much simpler (and easier to maintain) to just update the IRTE
> and PI structures for all IRQs in the routing table, especially since
> this is not a hot-path.
Agree.
Thanks,
Feng
>
>
> Joerg
--
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