Hi Pavel, On 07/02/2015 09:53 AM, Pavel Fedin wrote: > Hello! > >> -----Original Message----- >> From: kvm-owner@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:kvm-owner@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Eric Auger >> Sent: Monday, June 29, 2015 6:37 PM >> To: eric.auger@xxxxxx; eric.auger@xxxxxxxxxx; linux-arm-kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; >> marc.zyngier@xxxxxxx; christoffer.dall@xxxxxxxxxx; andre.przywara@xxxxxxx; >> kvmarm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; kvm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx >> Cc: linux-kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; patches@xxxxxxxxxx; p.fedin@xxxxxxxxxxx; pbonzini@xxxxxxxxxx >> Subject: [PATCH 7/7] KVM: arm: implement kvm_set_msi by gsi direct mapping >> >> If the ITS modality is not available, let's simply support MSI >> injection by transforming the MSI.data into an SPI ID. >> >> This becomes possible to use KVM_SIGNAL_MSI ioctl for arm too. >> >> Signed-off-by: Eric Auger <eric.auger@xxxxxxxxxx> >> --- >> arch/arm/kvm/Kconfig | 1 + >> virt/kvm/arm/vgic.c | 5 +++++ >> 2 files changed, 6 insertions(+) >> >> diff --git a/arch/arm/kvm/Kconfig b/arch/arm/kvm/Kconfig >> index 151e710..0f58baf 100644 >> --- a/arch/arm/kvm/Kconfig >> +++ b/arch/arm/kvm/Kconfig >> @@ -31,6 +31,7 @@ config KVM >> select KVM_VFIO >> select HAVE_KVM_EVENTFD >> select HAVE_KVM_IRQFD >> + select HAVE_KVM_MSI >> select HAVE_KVM_IRQCHIP >> select HAVE_KVM_IRQ_ROUTING >> depends on ARM_VIRT_EXT && ARM_LPAE && ARM_ARCH_TIMER >> diff --git a/virt/kvm/arm/vgic.c b/virt/kvm/arm/vgic.c >> index 0b4c48c..b3c10dc 100644 >> --- a/virt/kvm/arm/vgic.c >> +++ b/virt/kvm/arm/vgic.c >> @@ -2314,6 +2314,11 @@ int kvm_set_msi(struct kvm_kernel_irq_routing_entry *e, >> return kvm->arch.vgic.vm_ops.inject_msi(kvm, &msi); >> else >> return -ENODEV; >> + case KVM_IRQ_ROUTING_MSI: >> + if (kvm->arch.vgic.vm_ops.inject_msi) >> + return -EINVAL; >> + else >> + return kvm_vgic_inject_irq(kvm, 0, e->msi.data, level); > > Given API change i suggest (using KVM_MSI_VALID_DEVID flag), we could get rid of all these if()'s > here. Just forward all parameters to vGIC implementation code and let it do its checks. I don't understand this comment. Here this is the kernel struct that is used (struct kvm_kernel_irq_routing_entry) and not the user one (kvm_irq_routing_entry). The kernel struct does not have the flag field. Another reason I think to keep using the type for homogeneity. To be noted that in the kernel struct, the devid is passed in kvm_extended_msi, as you suggested for the user-space struct. Thanks Eric > >> default: >> return -EINVAL; >> } >> -- >> 1.9.1 >> >> -- >> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe kvm" in >> the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx >> More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html > > Kind regards, > Pavel Fedin > Expert Engineer > Samsung Electronics Research center Russia > > _______________________________________________ kvmarm mailing list kvmarm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.cs.columbia.edu/mailman/listinfo/kvmarm
