[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date: Tue, 07 Jul 2015 13:57:51 +0300
From: Pavel Fedin <p.fedin@...sung.com>
To: 'Andre Przywara' <andre.przywara@....com>,
'Paolo Bonzini' <pbonzini@...hat.com>,
'Christoffer Dall' <christoffer.dall@...aro.org>
Cc: 'Eric Auger' <eric.auger@...aro.org>, eric.auger@...com,
linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org,
'Marc Zyngier' <Marc.Zyngier@....com>,
kvmarm@...ts.cs.columbia.edu, kvm@...r.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: RE: [PATCH 1/7] KVM: api: add kvm_irq_routing_extended_msi
> I just don't want to end up with something like:
> (GICV3 && ARM64) || (GICV3 && ARM && KERNEL>4.4) || (SuperIRQC && i986)
> or
> (ARM || ARM64) && HAS_IRQ_ROUTING
>
> Instead: If the kernel needs it, it tells you. Full stop.
Agree.
> To be honest it's me to blame here to not having introduced the
> capability earlier. At the moment ARM has a different code path for
> KVM_SIGNAL_MSI, which does not bail out if the flag field is set. With
> Eric's patches this changes and we use the irqchip.c generic code, which
> returns -EINVAL atm. So I plan to introduce this capability already with
> the ITS emulation series, so we can just pick it up in the IRQ routing
> series.
Then may be you follow https://lkml.org/lkml/2015/7/7/115 and replace flag with something like
KVM_SIGNAL_EXT_MSI ioctl ? After all you were one of people who voted against using flags.
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