On Sun, Jun 14, 2009 at 04:23:36PM +0300, Avi Kivity wrote: > Michael S. Tsirkin wrote: > > > >>> I think Avi asked for this specific feature during review which is the >>> reason why its there today. However, I agree that it would probably be >>> a good idea to put an upper limit on the number of supported aliases >>> that can be registered. Will fix. >>> >>> Thanks Michael, >>> >>> -Greg >>> >>> >>> >> >> >> Avi, can you elaborate on why do we want to map multiple fds >> to the same gsi? I think it's better to allow a 1:1 mapping >> only: if many processes want to trigger interrupts they can >> all write to the same fd. >> > > I don't want to assume that the eventfds all come from the same source. > > That said, we have a workaround, allocate a new gsi with the same routes > and attach the excess eventfds there. Right. So you are ok with 1:1 irqfd:gsi requirement for now? This seems nicer than N:1 with an arbitrary N. -- MST -- 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
