On Thu, 2012-08-16 at 19:32 +0300, Avi Kivity wrote: > On 08/11/2012 01:37 AM, Alex Williamson wrote: > > v8: > > > > Trying a new approach. Nobody seems to like the internal IRQ > > source ID object and the interactions it implies between irqfd > > and eoifd, so let's get rid of it. Instead, simply expose > > IRQ source IDs to userspace. This lets the user be in charge > > of freeing them or hanging onto a source ID for later use. They > > can also detach and re-attach components at will. It also opens > > up the possibility that userspace might want to use each IRQ > > source ID for more than one GSI (and avoids the kernel needing > > to manage that). Per suggestions, EOIFD is now IRQ_ACKFD. > > > > I really wanted to add a de-assert-only option to irqfd so the > > irq_ackfd could be fed directly into an irqfd, but I'm dependent > > on the ordering of de-assert _then_ signal an eventfd. Keeping > > that ordering doesn't seem to be possible, especially since irqfd > > uses a workqueue, if I attempt to make that connection. Thanks, > > I can't say I'm happy with exposing irq source IDs. It's true that they > correspond to a physical entity so they can't be said to be an > implementation detail, but adding more ABIs has a cost and I can't say > that I see another user for this. > > Can you provide a link to the combined irqfd+ackfd implementation? I'm > inclined now to go for the simplest solution possible. As soon as I write it :) Keeping lists to handle the one-to-many deassert-to-notify will notch up the complexity, but it'll be interesting to see how it compares. Thanks, Alex -- 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
