On Sun, Sep 19, 2010 at 01:05:09PM +0200, Avi Kivity wrote: > On 09/19/2010 12:55 PM, 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. > > > > Certainly. We should also update the documentation, when we have > irqfd documentation. When and if we start supporing level, we'll have to add a capability flag. By way of documentation, reserve a bit value in header right now? > -- > 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
