On 07/08/2009 10:59 AM, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
@@ -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?
qemu upstream doesn't carry its own headers, so it we want to merge, we need to work against old headers.
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.
Doesn't work with -O0 (or if it does, we can't count on it). -- error compiling committee.c: too many arguments to function -- 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
