On 2012-08-14 13:01, Avi Kivity wrote: > On 08/14/2012 10:33 AM, Jan Kiszka wrote: >> >> KVM_IRQ_LINE is old-style, deprecated, KVM_IRQ_LINE_STATUS (i.e >> injection with feedback to allow lost-tick compensation) is the current >> standard that other archs should pick up. > > KVM_IRQ_LINE_STATUS may not make sense on all architectures. > > I don't think we're really deprecating KVM_IRQ_LINE or discouraging its > use. It's not like the kernel-allocated memory slot ioctls. I do not think it makes sense to provide both interfaces long term (provided we ever do a cut). Also, it's almost trivial to provide the add-on feature of KVM_IRQ_LINE_STATUS, and it keeps the door open for IRQ decoalescing. If there is no way for an arch to detect coalescing, it can still return >0 unconditionally. 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
