On 2012-06-25 15:38, Alex Williamson wrote:
> On Mon, 2012-05-14 at 18:07 -0300, Jan Kiszka wrote:
>> Add a service that establishes a static route from a virtual IRQ line to
>> an MSI message. Will be used for IRQFD and device assignment. As we will
>> use this service outside of CONFIG_KVM protected code, stub it properly.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Jan Kiszka <jan.kiszka@xxxxxxxxxxx>
>> ---
>> kvm-all.c | 31 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>> kvm-stub.c | 8 ++++++++
>> kvm.h | 10 ++++++----
>> 3 files changed, 45 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/kvm-all.c b/kvm-all.c
>> index 8ab83db..f45b852 100644
>> --- a/kvm-all.c
>> +++ b/kvm-all.c
>> @@ -1080,6 +1080,32 @@ int kvm_irqchip_send_msi(KVMState *s, MSIMessage msg)
>> return kvm_irqchip_set_irq(s, route->kroute.gsi, 1);
>> }
>>
>> +int kvm_irqchip_add_msi_route(KVMState *s, MSIMessage msg)
>> +{
>> + struct kvm_irq_routing_entry kroute;
>> + int gsi;
>> +
>> + if (!kvm_irqchip_in_kernel()) {
>> + return -ENOSYS;
>> + }
>> +
>> + gsi = kvm_get_pseudo_gsi(s);
>> + if (gsi < 0) {
>> + return gsi;
>> + }
>> +
>> + kroute.gsi = gsi;
>> + kroute.type = KVM_IRQ_ROUTING_MSI;
>> + kroute.flags = 0;
>> + kroute.u.msi.address_lo = (uint32_t)msg.address;
>> + kroute.u.msi.address_hi = msg.address >> 32;
>> + kroute.u.msi.data = msg.data;
>> +
>> + kvm_add_routing_entry(s, &kroute);
>> +
>> + return gsi;
>> +}
>> +
>> #else /* !KVM_CAP_IRQ_ROUTING */
>>
>> static void kvm_init_irq_routing(KVMState *s)
>> @@ -1090,6 +1116,11 @@ int kvm_irqchip_send_msi(KVMState *s, MSIMessage msg)
>> {
>> abort();
>> }
>> +
>> +int kvm_irqchip_add_msi_route(KVMState *s, MSIMessage msg)
>> +{
>> + abort();
>> +}
>> #endif /* !KVM_CAP_IRQ_ROUTING */
>
>
> Jan,
>
> Could we perhaps return a sane error value here? This seems to be the
> initial function used to setup direct MSI injection and if we have code
> like:
>
> virq = kvm_irqchip_add_msi_route(...)
> if (virq < 0) {
> slow path...
> } else {
> fast path...
> }
>
> It works on x86 w/ or w/o irqchip, works with kvm disabled, but gives an
> abort on !x86. I really don't want to have to surround the above in a
> #define or in-kernel ioapic test. Thanks,
No problems, just send a patch.
Jan
--
Siemens AG, Corporate Technology, CT T DE IT 1
Corporate Competence Center Embedded Linux
--
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
