Hi Alex, On 11/7/2023 3:06 PM, Alex Williamson wrote: > That also sort of illustrates the point though that this series is > taking a pretty broad approach to slicing up vfio-pci-core's SET_IRQS > ioctl code path, enabling support for IMS backed interrupts, but in > effect complicating the whole thing without any actual consumer to > justify the complication. Meanwhile I think the goal is to reduce > complication to a driver that doesn't exist yet. So it currently seems > like a poor trade-off. > > This driver that doesn't exist yet could implement its own SET_IRQS > ioctl that backs MSI-X with IMS as a starting point. Presumably we > expect multiple drivers to require this behavior, so common code makes > sense, but the rest of us in the community can't really evaluate how > much it makes sense to slice the common code without seeing that > implementation and how it might leverage, if not directly use, the > existing core code. I understand. I'm hearing the same from you and Jason. I plan to work on addressing your feedback but will only share it when it can be accompanied by a draft of the IDXD VDCM driver. Please let me know if you prefer a different approach. Reinette
