On Thu, Nov 18, 2010 at 03:14:53PM +0200, 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.
Not for msi. kvm_kernel_irq_routing_entry seems to just keep an
address/data pair in that case. So
union {
struct {
unsigned irqchip;
unsigned pin;
} irqchip;
struct msi_msg msi;
};
would become
union {
struct {
unsigned irqchip;
unsigned pin;
} irqchip;
struct {
struct msi_msg msi;
struct kvm_vpcu *dest;
} msi;
};
or something like this.
> Other then that
> this is a good idea that, IIRC, we already discussed once.
>
> --
> Gleb.
--
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
