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 > > _______________________________________________ kvmarm mailing list kvmarm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.cs.columbia.edu/mailman/listinfo/kvmarm
