On 03/14/2013 05:44:39 PM, Alexander Graf wrote:
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.
Sure.
-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
