On 11/18/2010 03:14 PM, Gleb Natapov wrote:
On Thu, Nov 18, 2010 at 03:03:37PM +0200, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> > >+static inline void kvm_irq_routing_update(struct kvm *kvm,
> > >+ struct kvm_irq_routing_table *irq_rt)
> > >+{
> > >+ rcu_assign_pointer(kvm->irq_routing, irq_rt);
> > >+}
> > >+
> > > static inline int kvm_ioeventfd(struct kvm *kvm, struct kvm_ioeventfd *args)
> > > {
> > > return -ENOSYS;
> >
> > Apart from these minor issues, looks good.
>
>
> Something we should consider improving is the loop over all VCPUs that
> kvm_irq_delivery_to_apic invokes. I think that (for non-broadcast
> interrupts) it should be possible to precompute an store the CPU
> in question as part of the routing entry.
>
> Something for a separate patch ... comments?
>
I do not think this info should be part of routing entry. Routing entry
is more about describing wires on the board. Other then that
this is a good idea that, IIRC, we already discussed once.
Not as part of the routing entry exposed to userspace. But as a private
kernel field, why not?
--
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
