Hi! > I guess not. But I prefer the new type anyway, as it also has a known > error path for older kernels. flags != 0 has known error path too, and it's absolutely the same. Sorry, read this after writing my previous reply, so this is a short addendum. I see lots of people agreed on a new type. If my argument about reusing existing definitions is not enough, you can ignore it. Three people beat one definitely. :) And yes, since we are talking about it, actually KVM_MSI_VALID_DEVID flag is not yet a part of mainline, so it's not set in stone. Then, perhaps you could throw it away completely and invent KVM_SIGNAL_EXT_MSI ioctl for sending MSIs with device ID. This would also be consistent IMO. Kind regards, Pavel Fedin Expert Engineer Samsung Electronics Research center Russia _______________________________________________ kvmarm mailing list kvmarm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.cs.columbia.edu/mailman/listinfo/kvmarm
