On Thu, Sep 11, 2014 at 10:49:08AM +0200, Eric Auger wrote: > On 09/11/2014 05:10 AM, Christoffer Dall wrote: > > On Mon, Sep 01, 2014 at 02:52:44PM +0200, Eric Auger wrote: [...] > >> + > >> +It is up to the caller of this API to make sure the IRQ is not > >> +outstanding when the FORWARD/UNFORWARD is called. This could lead to > > > > outstanding? can you be specific? > active? and I should add *physical* IRQ > > > > don't refer to FOWARD/UNFORWARD, either refer to these attributes by > > their full name or use a clear reference in proper English. > ok > > > >> +some inconsistency on who is going to complete the IRQ. > > > > This sounds like the whole thing is fragile and if userspace doesn't do > > things right, IRQ handling of a piece of hardware is going to be > > inconsistent? Is this the case? If so, we need some stronger > > semantics. If not, this should be rephrased. > Actually the KVM-VFIO device rejects any attempt to change the > forwarding mode if the physical IRQ is active. So I hope this is robust > and will change the explanation. > ok, so what is the proposed method if the IRQ is indeed active, should user space loop around and try or can user space make sure somehow? If user space should simply retry for a number of times, we should probalby return a proper error code for this case -EINTR? -Christoffer -- 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
