Hello!
> But why would it need the capability to create models?
Actually it doesn't.
> The idea is to
> check the capability before the actual KVM_SIGNAL_MSI or
> KVM_SET_GSI_ROUTING ioctl (and cache that result). I have a function
> with a static variable to do that, so it looks like:
>
> + if (check_for_msi_devid(kvm)) {
> + irq_routing->entries[irq_routing->nr].flags = KVM_MSI_VALID_DEVID;
> + irq_routing->entries[irq_routing->nr].u.msi.devid = device_id;
> + }
>
> > May be we should just set the capability to TRUE for
> > ARM architecture in general, and make GICv2m MSIs simply ignoring this flag and device ID?
>
> Possibly, but it would be saner to tell userland that it's a per VM
> decision for ARM. Since you need extra support bits in the userland
> anyway (to set up GICv2M or ITS emulation), I think it is acceptable to
> require a late, per-VM capability check in userland in that case.
Well, agree, and formally this is more correct. Just it would require slightly more additions to
qemu. But it's not a real problem.
Kind regards,
Pavel Fedin
Expert Engineer
Samsung Electronics Research center Russia
_______________________________________________
kvmarm mailing list
kvmarm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://lists.cs.columbia.edu/mailman/listinfo/kvmarm
