Hello! > I think it's worth moving the thing to device attributes, yes, > especially given that I never expect us to trap and emulate GICv3 system > register accesses from a guest in KVM. Is that correct? Yes, but nevertheless, for GICv2 attributes we reuse the same code which is expected to trap MMIO accesses from guest. And there we also have MMIO handlers for the CPU interface, which are also never trapped from guest. So why cannot we do the same for GICv3 CPU interface, and simply reuse existing APIs? I am currently working on full support in qemu, and it's not difficult to deal with CPU fd's. Because anyway you have to iterate through all VCPUs in order to save state correctly. Kind regards, Pavel Fedin Expert Engineer Samsung Electronics Research center Russia -- 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
