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? -- Gleb. -- To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in the body to majordomo@xxxxxxxxx. For more info on Linux MM, see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ . Don't email: <a href=mailto:"dont@xxxxxxxxx";> email@xxxxxxxxx </a>