[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <ZOeGQrRCqf87Joec@nvidia.com>
Date: Thu, 24 Aug 2023 13:33:06 -0300
From: Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@...dia.com>
To: Reinette Chatre <reinette.chatre@...el.com>
Cc: yishaih@...dia.com, shameerali.kolothum.thodi@...wei.com,
kevin.tian@...el.com, alex.williamson@...hat.com,
kvm@...r.kernel.org, dave.jiang@...el.com, jing2.liu@...el.com,
ashok.raj@...el.com, fenghua.yu@...el.com,
tom.zanussi@...ux.intel.com, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 2/3] vfio/ims: Support emulated interrupts
On Thu, Aug 24, 2023 at 09:15:21AM -0700, Reinette Chatre wrote:
> Access from a guest to a virtual device may be either 'direct-path',
> where the guest interacts directly with the underlying hardware,
> or 'intercepted path' where the virtual device emulates operations.
>
> Support emulated interrupts that can be used to handle 'intercepted
> path' operations. For example, a virtual device may use 'intercepted
> path' for configuration. Doing so, configuration requests intercepted
> by the virtual device driver are handled within the virtual device
> driver with completion signaled to the guest without interacting with
> the underlying hardware.
Why does this have anything to do with IMS? I thought the point here
was that IMS was some back end to the MSI-X emulation - should a
purely emulated interrupt logically be part of the MSI code, not IMS?
Jason
Powered by blists - more mailing lists