On Mon, May 09, 2011 at 01:43:15PM +0930, Rusty Russell wrote: > On Wed, 4 May 2011 23:51:19 +0300, "Michael S. Tsirkin" <mst@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > Define a new feature bit for the host to > > declare that it uses an avail_event index > > (like Xen) instead of a feature bit > > to enable/disable interrupts. > > > > Signed-off-by: Michael S. Tsirkin <mst@xxxxxxxxxx> > > --- > > include/linux/virtio_ring.h | 11 ++++++++--- > > 1 files changed, 8 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-) > > > > diff --git a/include/linux/virtio_ring.h b/include/linux/virtio_ring.h > > index f5c1b75..f791772 100644 > > --- a/include/linux/virtio_ring.h > > +++ b/include/linux/virtio_ring.h > > @@ -32,6 +32,9 @@ > > /* The Guest publishes the used index for which it expects an interrupt > > * at the end of the avail ring. Host should ignore the avail->flags field. */ > > #define VIRTIO_RING_F_USED_EVENT_IDX 29 > > +/* The Host publishes the avail index for which it expects a kick > > + * at the end of the used ring. Guest should ignore the used->flags field. */ > > +#define VIRTIO_RING_F_AVAIL_EVENT_IDX 32 > > Are you really sure we want to separate the two? Seems a little simpler > to have one bit to mean "we're publishing our threshold". For someone > implementing this from scratch, it's a little simpler. > > Or are there cases where the old style makes more sense? > > Thanks, > Rusty. Hmm, it makes debugging easier as each side can disable publishing separately - I used it all the time when I saw e.g. networking stuck to guess whether I need to investigate the interrupt or the exit handling. But I'm not hung up on this. Let me know pls. -- MST -- 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
