On 2012-07-02 11:18, 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. On the long term, we will need direct injection, ie. caching, to allow making it lock-less. Stepping through all intermediate layers will cause troubles, at least performance-wise, when having to take and drop a lock at each stop. > > 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). OK, will do ASAP. > > I still intend to rework this later on, but that can wait. > > Thanks, > Thanks as well, Jan -- Siemens AG, Corporate Technology, CT RTC ITP SDP-DE 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
