On Wed, May 20, 2009 at 08:44:31PM +0300, Blue Swirl wrote:
> On 5/20/09, Michael S. Tsirkin <mst@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > On Wed, May 20, 2009 at 08:21:01PM +0300, Blue Swirl wrote:
> > > On 5/20/09, Michael S. Tsirkin <mst@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > > > define api for allocating/setting up msi-x irqs, and for updating them
> > > > with msi-x vector information, supply implementation in ioapic. Please
> > > > comment on this API: I intend to port my msi-x patch to work on top of
> > > > it.
> > > >
> > > > Signed-off-by: Michael S. Tsirkin <mst@xxxxxxxxxx>
> > >
> > > Sparc64 also uses packets ("mondos", not implemented yet) for
> > > interrupt vector data, there the packet size is 8 * 64 bits.
> > > I think we should aim for a more generic API that covers this case also.
> >
> >
> > Are you sure this is a good idea? MSI is tied to PCI, and PCI only has
> > MSI, not "mondos". What code would benefit from this abstraction?
>
> Sparc64 emulation, of course. I think also the API would be neater.
>
> > > For example, irq.c could support opaque packet payload of
> > > unspecified/predefined size. MSI packet structure should be defined
> > > in ioapic.c.
> >
> >
> > Note that MSI does not have packets and MSI interrupts do not pass any payload.
>
> I don't know too much about MSI, what's the 'data' field in msi_state then?
opaque stuff that apic uses to select irq and cpu.
--
MST
_______________________________________________
Virtualization mailing list
Virtualization@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://lists.linux-foundation.org/mailman/listinfo/virtualization
