On 02/20/2013 06:14:37 PM, Marcelo Tosatti wrote:
On Wed, Feb 20, 2013 at 05:53:20PM -0600, Scott Wood wrote:
> >It is then not necessary to set device attributes on a live guest
and
> >deal with the complications associated with that.
>
> Which complications?
>
> -Scott
Semantics of individual attribute writes, for one.
When the attribute is a device register, the hardware documentation
takes care of that. Otherwise, the semantics are documented in the
device-specific documentation -- which can include restricting when the
access is allowed. Same as with any other interface documentation.
I suppose mpic.txt could use an additional statement that
KVM_DEV_MPIC_GRP_REGISTER performs an access as if it were performed by
the guest.
Locking versus currently executing VCPUs, for another (see how
KVM_SET_IRQ's RCU usage, for instance, that is something should be
shared).
If you mean kvm_set_irq() in irq_comm.c, that's only relevant when you
have a GSI routing table, which this patchset doesn't.
Assuming we end up having a routing table to support irqfd, we still
can't share the code as is, since it's APIC-specific.
-Scott
--
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
