Re: plan for device assignment upstream

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



On 07/02/2012 12:18 PM, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> I've been thinking hard about Jan's patches for device
> assignment. Basically while I thought it makes sense
> to make all devices: assignment and not - behave the
> same and use same APIs for injecting irqs, Anthony thinks there is huge
> value in making irq propagation hierarchical and device assignment
> should be special cased.
> 
> We seem to be at impasse for now and I think merging
> assignment ASAP has higher value than this specific
> issue. So I fold - let's do it as Anthony and Jan's
> original patches proposed.
> 
> Jan, can you please rebase and repost your original patchset (against
> master, not against pci) that added query for host irqs callbacks for
> device assignment? I'll re-review ignoring the idea of using the cache,
> with intent apply after I'll drop cache code from the pci branch in a
> couple of days (busy otherwise now).
> 
> I still intend to rework this later on, but that can wait.

Agree with both your ideas about the API and the decision to rework it
in tree.

-- 
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


[Index of Archives]     [KVM ARM]     [KVM ia64]     [KVM ppc]     [Virtualization Tools]     [Spice Development]     [Libvirt]     [Libvirt Users]     [Linux USB Devel]     [Linux Audio Users]     [Yosemite Questions]     [Linux Kernel]     [Linux SCSI]     [XFree86]
  Powered by Linux