On 10.07.2013, at 12:42, Gleb Natapov wrote: > On Wed, Jul 10, 2013 at 12:39:01PM +0200, Alexander Graf wrote: >> >> On 09.07.2013, at 18:01, Christian Borntraeger wrote: >> >>> On 09/07/13 15:56, Dominik Dingel wrote: >>>> By setting a Kconfig option, the architecture can control when >>>> guest notifications will be presented by the apf backend. >>>> So there is the default batch mechanism, working as before, where the vcpu thread >>>> should pull in this information. On the other hand there is now the direct >>>> mechanism, this will directly push the information to the guest. >>>> >>>> Still the vcpu thread should call check_completion to cleanup leftovers, >>>> that leaves most of the common code untouched. >>>> >>>> Signed-off-by: Dominik Dingel <dingel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> >>> >>> Acked-by: Christian Borntraeger <borntraeger@xxxxxxxxxx> >>> for the "why". We want to use the existing architectured interface. >> >> Shouldn't this be a runtime option? >> > Why? What is the advantage of using sync delivery when HW can do it > async? What's the advantage of having an option at all then? Who selects it? 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
