On 14.03.2013, at 23:02, Paul Mackerras wrote: > On Thu, Mar 14, 2013 at 01:15:35PM -0500, Scott Wood wrote: >> On 03/13/2013 08:26:20 PM, Paul Mackerras wrote: > >>> I arbitrarily >>> assigned 0x58494353 for KVM_CAP_IRQ_XICS as the args[0] value to >>> indicate XICS. >> >> Why is it called KVM_CAP_<whatever> if it's not a capability? > > Because it's associated with a capability. I'm not wedded to the name. > >>> I think it would be better if we don't have to get a >>> new capability number assigned every time we want to add a new type of >>> interrupt controller. >> >> How often does it really happen? If a simple enumeration is good >> enough for identifying the main IRQ controller device type, it >> should be good enough for identifying the vcpu irq arch. > > Whatever. I really don't care at this point, I'm just getting > extremely tired of the bikeshedding. If you don't like it, propose > something. So far most comments I've seen haven't been bikeshedding, but each and every one got us closer to something that we can hopefully rely on for the next few years. However, I agree. Scott, you seem to have a pretty good picture by now on how this should look like. Could you please take this patch as a basis, make each controller type its own CAP and have the enable_cap pass a token (fd) to the interrupt controller the CPU should get connected to? I think we're getting very close to having something that looks gorgeous. 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
