On Wed, Jul 08, 2009 at 10:59:13AM +0300, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 07, 2009 at 02:36:31PM -0400, Glauber Costa wrote:
> > Signed-off-by: Glauber Costa <glommer@xxxxxxxxxx>
> > ---
> > hw/msix.c | 14 ++++++++++++++
> > 1 files changed, 14 insertions(+), 0 deletions(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/hw/msix.c b/hw/msix.c
> > index b6f3948..8636f69 100644
> > --- a/hw/msix.c
> > +++ b/hw/msix.c
> > @@ -63,6 +63,7 @@
> > /* Flag for interrupt controller to declare MSI-X support */
> > int msix_supported;
> >
> > +#ifdef USE_KVM
> > /* KVM specific MSIX helpers */
> > static void kvm_msix_free(PCIDevice *dev)
> > {
> > @@ -157,6 +158,14 @@ static void kvm_msix_del(PCIDevice *dev, unsigned vector)
> > kvm_del_routing_entry(kvm_context, &dev->msix_irq_entries[vector]);
> > kvm_commit_irq_routes(kvm_context);
> > }
> > +#else
> > +
> > +static void kvm_msix_free(PCIDevice *dev) {}
> > +static void kvm_msix_update(PCIDevice *dev, int vector,
> > + int was_masked, int is_masked) {}
> > +static int kvm_msix_add(PCIDevice *dev, unsigned vector) { return -1; }
> > +static void kvm_msix_del(PCIDevice *dev, unsigned vector) {}
> > +#endif
> >
> > /* Add MSI-X capability to the config space for the device. */
> > /* Given a bar and its size, add MSI-X table on top of it
>
> Thanks for fix!
>
> > @@ -337,10 +346,12 @@ int msix_init(struct PCIDevice *dev, unsigned short nentries,
> > if (nentries > MSIX_MAX_ENTRIES)
> > return -EINVAL;
> >
> > +#ifdef KVM_CAP_IRQCHIP
> > if (kvm_enabled() && qemu_kvm_irqchip_in_kernel()) {
> > dev->msix_irq_entries = qemu_malloc(nentries *
> > sizeof *dev->msix_irq_entries);
> > }
> > +#endif
> > dev->msix_entry_used = qemu_mallocz(MSIX_MAX_ENTRIES *
> > sizeof *dev->msix_entry_used);
> >
> > @@ -454,10 +465,13 @@ void msix_notify(PCIDevice *dev, unsigned vector)
> > msix_set_pending(dev, vector);
> > return;
> > }
> > +
> > +#ifdef KVM_CAP_IRQCHIP
> > if (kvm_enabled() && qemu_kvm_irqchip_in_kernel()) {
> > kvm_set_irq(dev->msix_irq_entries[vector].gsi, 1, NULL);
> > return;
> > }
> > +#endif
> >
> > address = pci_get_long(table_entry + MSIX_MSG_UPPER_ADDR);
> > address = (address << 32) | pci_get_long(table_entry + MSIX_MSG_ADDR);
>
> I think it's time we stopped worrying about builds against old kernel
> headers or without them. What do we gain from it?
>
> I believe that the right thing to do is to define kvm_enabled as a macro
> returning 0, and let compiler optimize the code out.
that already happens with kvm_enabled().
I have no idea why the compiler do not rip of code when we also test for
qemu_kvm_irqchip_in_kernel() or other things.
what we could do, is to only test for qemu_kvm_irqchip_in_kernel(),
using the hidden assumption that if kvm is not enabled, irqchip tests
will always return false.
It is a little bit messy, though.
--
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
