On Thu, Aug 27, 2009 at 08:32:24PM +0930, Rusty Russell wrote: > On Thu, 27 Aug 2009 07:19:26 pm Michael S. Tsirkin wrote: > > On Thu, Aug 27, 2009 at 07:00:34PM +0930, Rusty Russell wrote: > > > On Tue, 25 Aug 2009 09:34:34 pm Michael S. Tsirkin wrote: > > > > > That's because we didn't do the request_irq's for the per_vector case, because > > > > > we don't have the names. This is what prevented me from doing a nice > > > > > encapsulation. > > > > > > > > Yes. But let's split free_vectors out into free_msix_vectors and > > > > free_intx as well? > > > > > > Perhaps. Patch welcome :) > > > > Could you put the end result somewhere so I can work on top of it? > > Sure, it'll hit linux-next tomorrow, otherwise you can steal from > http://ozlabs.org/~rusty/kernel/rr-latest (virtio:pci-minor-cleanups.patch > and virtio:pci-minor-cleanups-fix.patch). > > > > But vector for something which isn't always the vector > > > is misleading, IMHO. > > > > I think you mean it's isn't always used? It's always a vector ... > > The non-MSI case, it's set to VIRTIO_MSI_NO_VECTOR, and we use a normal > interrupt vector. > > > BTW, let's get rid of msix_enabled completely? > > We can always use msix_vectors ... > > That would be nice. But yes, requiring more audit. > > Ideally, if msix_vectors == 0, implies intx_enabled. It seems that since we *can* request both an intx and msix vectors, it's better to have them independent even if we currently don't do that. No? > Thanks, > Rusty. -- 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
