[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <55954FC7.3070604@linaro.org>
Date: Thu, 02 Jul 2015 16:50:47 +0200
From: Eric Auger <eric.auger@...aro.org>
To: Pavel Fedin <p.fedin@...sung.com>, eric.auger@...com,
linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org, marc.zyngier@....com,
christoffer.dall@...aro.org, andre.przywara@....com,
kvmarm@...ts.cs.columbia.edu, kvm@...r.kernel.org
CC: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, patches@...aro.org,
pbonzini@...hat.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/7] KVM: api: add kvm_irq_routing_extended_msi
On 07/02/2015 10:41 AM, Pavel Fedin wrote:
> Hello!
>
>> What if we use KVM_MSI_VALID_DEVID flag instead of new KVM_IRQ_ROUTING_EXTENDED_MSI
>> definition? I
>> believe this would make an API more consistent and introduce less new definitions.
>
> I have just found one more flaw in your implementation. If you take a look at irqfd_wakeup()...
> --- cut ---
> /* An event has been signaled, inject an interrupt */
> if (irq.type == KVM_IRQ_ROUTING_MSI)
> kvm_set_msi(&irq, kvm, KVM_USERSPACE_IRQ_SOURCE_ID, 1,
> false);
> else
> schedule_work(&irqfd->inject);
> --- cut ---
> You apparently missed KVM_IRQ_ROUTING_EXTENDED_MSI here, as well as in irqfd_update(). But, if you
> accept my API proposal, this becomes irrelevant.
Hi Pavel,
thanks for spotting this bug. Whatever the user-api API choice I will
respin shortly fixing this plus the one reported by André.
Thanks for the review.
Best Regards
Eric
>
> Kind regards,
> Pavel Fedin
> Expert Engineer
> Samsung Electronics Research center Russia
>
>
--
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