On Sun, Sep 19, 2010 at 01:18:44PM +0200, Gleb Natapov wrote: > On Sun, Sep 19, 2010 at 12:55:12PM +0200, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote: > > On Sun, Sep 19, 2010 at 12:56:12PM +0200, Avi Kivity wrote: > > > On 09/19/2010 12:45 PM, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote: > > > >On Fri, Sep 17, 2010 at 09:59:29AM +0200, Gleb Natapov wrote: > > > >> > writing 0 to eventfd does nothing. The way to deassert irq > > > >> That is implementation detail of current irqfd. It was designed for MSI > > > >> not level triggered interrupts. > > > > > > > >Maybe we should add a check that gsi is mapped to MSI (or unmapped) then? > > > >Level which switches to 1 and back to 0 immediately will be racy anyway > > > >... > > > > > > > > > > Add a check where? > > > > I would make sure that if you bind irqfd to a non-MSI GSI, > > signalling it has no effect. > > > Why would you do that? I am not against checking per se, but why a user of > the API can't check for that? > > -- > Gleb. Currently using irqfd with level will kind of work, sometimes. Better have it consistently not working so application writers get the message that they can't rely on it. -- MST -- 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
