On Wed, Sep 04, 2019 at 05:58:08PM +0200, Alexander Graf wrote:
>
> On 04.09.19 17:51, Sean Christopherson wrote:
> >On Wed, Sep 04, 2019 at 05:36:39PM +0200, Alexander Graf wrote:
> >>
> >>- if (!kvm_intr_is_single_vcpu(kvm, &irq, &vcpu)) {
> >>+ if (!kvm_intr_is_single_vcpu(kvm, &irq, &vcpu) ||
> >>+ !kvm_irq_is_generic(&irq)) {
> >
> >I've never heard/seen the term generic used to describe x86 interrupts.
> >Maybe kvm_irq_is_intr() or kvm_irq_is_vectored_intr()?
>
> I was trying to come up with any name that describes "interrupt that we can
> post". If "intr" is that, I'll be happy to take it. Vectored_intr sounds
> even worse IMHO :).
kvm_irq_is_intr() is fine by me if it's clear to everyone else.
Alternatively, we could be more literal, e.g. kvm_irq_is_postable().
>
> >
> >> pr_debug("SVM: %s: use legacy intr remap mode for irq %u\n",
> >> __func__, irq.vector);
> >> return -1;
> >>@@ -5314,6 +5315,7 @@ static int svm_update_pi_irte(struct kvm *kvm,
> >>unsigned int host_irq,
> >> * 1. When cannot target interrupt to a specific vcpu.
> >> * 2. Unsetting posted interrupt.
> >> * 3. APIC virtialization is disabled for the vcpu.
> >>+ * 4. IRQ has extended delivery mode (SMI, INIT, etc)
> >
> >Similarly, 'extended delivery mode' isn't really a thing, it's simply the
> >delivery mode.
>
> s/extended/incompatible/ maybe?
Ya, much better.
