Paolo, On 07/03/2015 04:24 AM, Wu, Feng wrote: > > >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Wu, Feng >> Sent: Friday, July 03, 2015 10:20 AM >> To: Paolo Bonzini; Eric Auger; eric.auger@xxxxxx; >> linux-arm-kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; kvmarm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; >> kvm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; christoffer.dall@xxxxxxxxxx; marc.zyngier@xxxxxxx; >> alex.williamson@xxxxxxxxxx; avi.kivity@xxxxxxxxx; mtosatti@xxxxxxxxxx; >> joro@xxxxxxxxxx; b.reynal@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx >> Cc: linux-kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; patches@xxxxxxxxxx; Wu, Feng >> Subject: RE: [RFC 12/17] irq: bypass: Extend skeleton for ARM forwarding >> control >> >> >> >>> -----Original Message----- >>> From: Paolo Bonzini [mailto:pbonzini@xxxxxxxxxx] >>> Sent: Thursday, July 02, 2015 9:41 PM >>> To: Eric Auger; eric.auger@xxxxxx; linux-arm-kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; >>> kvmarm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; kvm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; >>> christoffer.dall@xxxxxxxxxx; marc.zyngier@xxxxxxx; >>> alex.williamson@xxxxxxxxxx; avi.kivity@xxxxxxxxx; mtosatti@xxxxxxxxxx; >>> Wu, Feng; joro@xxxxxxxxxx; b.reynal@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx >>> Cc: linux-kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; patches@xxxxxxxxxx >>> Subject: Re: [RFC 12/17] irq: bypass: Extend skeleton for ARM forwarding >>> control >>> >>> >>> >>> On 02/07/2015 15:17, Eric Auger wrote: >>>> - new fields are added on producer side: linux irq, vfio_device handle, >>>> active which reflects whether the source is active (at interrupt >>>> controller level or at VFIO level - automasked -) and finally an >>>> opaque pointer which will be used to point to the vfio_platform_device >>>> in this series. >>> >>> Linux IRQ and active should be okay. As to the vfio_device handle, you >>> should link it from the vfio_platform_device instead. And for the >>> vfio_platform_device, you can link it from the vfio_platform_irq instead. >>> >>> Once you've done this, embed the irq_bypass_producer struct in the >>> vfio_platform_irq struct; in the new kvm_arch_* functions, go back to >>> the vfio_platform_irq struct via container_of. From there you can >>> retrieve pointers to the vfio_platform_device and the vfio_device. >>> >>>> - new fields on consumer side: the kvm handle, the gsi >>> >>> You do not need to add these. Instead, add the kvm handle to irqfd >>> only. Like above, embed the irq_bypass_consumer struct in the irqfd >>> struct; in the new kvm_arch_* functions, go back to the >>> vfio_platform_irq struct via container_of. >>> >> >> I also need the gsi field here, for posted-interrupts, I need 'gsi', 'irq' to >> update the IRTE. > > Oh... we can get gsi from irq_bypass_consumer -> _irqfd -> gsi, so it > is not needed in irq_bypass_consumer. Got it! :) The issue I have is that struct _irqfd is local to eventfd.c so it cannot be used in archi specific code. Is it acceptable to move it to kvm_host.h, naming it something like kvm_kernel_irqfd (as done for kvm_kernel_irq_routing_entry)? Would also need to move _irqfd_resampler there (kvm_kernel_irqfd_resampler). irqfd user struct cannot be used in a standalone manner since we miss the kvm handle. Thanks Eric > > Thanks, > Feng > >> >> Thanks, >> Feng >> >> >>> Paolo _______________________________________________ kvmarm mailing list kvmarm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.cs.columbia.edu/mailman/listinfo/kvmarm
