On 08/11/2014 02:05 PM, Alexander Graf wrote: > > On 11.08.14 14:04, Eric Auger wrote: >> On 08/11/2014 11:37 AM, Alexander Graf wrote: >>> On 09.08.14 16:25, Eric Auger wrote: >>>> set kvm_irqfds_allowed >>>> >>>> Signed-off-by: Eric Auger <eric.auger@xxxxxxxxxx> >>>> --- >>>> hw/intc/arm_gic_kvm.c | 2 ++ >>>> 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+) >>>> >>>> diff --git a/hw/intc/arm_gic_kvm.c b/hw/intc/arm_gic_kvm.c >>>> index 5038885..08b7bf9 100644 >>>> --- a/hw/intc/arm_gic_kvm.c >>>> +++ b/hw/intc/arm_gic_kvm.c >>>> @@ -576,6 +576,8 @@ static void kvm_arm_gic_realize(DeviceState *dev, >>>> Error **errp) >>>> KVM_DEV_ARM_VGIC_GRP_ADDR, >>>> KVM_VGIC_V2_ADDR_TYPE_CPU, >>>> s->dev_fd); >>>> + >>>> + kvm_irqfds_allowed = true; >>> Is this always true? If it is, why not enable it separately while making >>> vhost-net work for example? >> Hi Alex, >> >> yes I think so. As soon as KVM is enabled, KVM/arm would enable >> injection though irqfd. Defintively makes sense to test it with >> vhost-net too. Well a matter of priority ;-) > > More a matter of accuracy. What if you use new QEMU on old KVM which > does have in-kernel GIC support, but no irqfd support? Hi Alex, VFIO device code also calls kvm_check_extension(kvm_state, KVM_CAP_IRQFD_RESAMPLE) which would return false if IRQFD is not enabled in old kernels. But with respect to vhost-net irqfd usage I cannot comment yet and you may be right ;-) Best Regards Eric > > > Alex > _______________________________________________ kvmarm mailing list kvmarm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.cs.columbia.edu/mailman/listinfo/kvmarm
