On Wed, 2010-10-20 at 17:13 +0200, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote: > On Wed, Oct 20, 2010 at 09:07:12AM -0600, Alex Williamson wrote: > > On Wed, 2010-10-20 at 16:46 +0200, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote: > > > On Wed, Oct 20, 2010 at 08:47:14AM -0600, Alex Williamson wrote: > > > > It would probably make sense to request a mask/unmask ioctl in VFIO for > > > > MSI-X, then perhaps the pending bits would only support read/write (no > > > > mmap), so we could avoid an ioctl there. > > > > > > Why not mask/unmask with a write? > > > > That would be possible too, only trouble is then we have QEMU > > intercepting and interpreting the write as well as VFIO intercepting and > > interpreting the write. > > If VFIO is only masking off the mask bit, > > that'd be pretty trivial though. > > I just mean write() instead of an ioctl() Hmm, looking back through my vfio driver, I actually have some code that passes guest writes of the vector control field down to vfio. With interrupt remapping support, vfio should pass these to the device masking the interrupt at the source so we don't even need pending bit emulation. Then we just need to make sure we only filter out the vector table for read/write of the page it lives on so we can support the PBA being on the same page. Alex -- 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
