* Etienne Martineau (etmartin101@xxxxxxxxx) wrote: > On Tue, 26 Oct 2010, Chris Wright wrote: > >Right, and adding more to the existing KVM code which we are hoping to > >push to legacy support mode doesn't sound like a great idea. > > I would totally agree with you if the alternative implementation to > this legacy mode would be available in a relatively short time > frame. I'm not sure about that? Depends on how quickly you can help whip it into shape ;) That's why I asked about how you were implementing, for example, the AER extended capability exposure. Capabilities are a problem for the current code (forget about extended capabilities, just regular capabilities). > >>In that context, do you think it's acceptable for KVM to be the > >>driver of the assigned devices? OR should we simply add the AER > >>logic into existing pci-stub and relay the information to user-space > >>through eventfd... > > > >I'm reluctant to add logic to pci-stub, but VFIO should be able to > >handle this directly. > > I agree that VFIO should be able to do the job. It would be great to see some effort on this. thanks, -chris -- 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
