On Thu, 27 Aug 2009 07:19:26 pm Michael S. Tsirkin wrote: > On Thu, Aug 27, 2009 at 07:00:34PM +0930, Rusty Russell wrote: > > On Tue, 25 Aug 2009 09:34:34 pm Michael S. Tsirkin wrote: > > > > That's because we didn't do the request_irq's for the per_vector case, because > > > > we don't have the names. This is what prevented me from doing a nice > > > > encapsulation. > > > > > > Yes. But let's split free_vectors out into free_msix_vectors and > > > free_intx as well? > > > > Perhaps. Patch welcome :) > > Could you put the end result somewhere so I can work on top of it? Sure, it'll hit linux-next tomorrow, otherwise you can steal from http://ozlabs.org/~rusty/kernel/rr-latest (virtio:pci-minor-cleanups.patch and virtio:pci-minor-cleanups-fix.patch). > > But vector for something which isn't always the vector > > is misleading, IMHO. > > I think you mean it's isn't always used? It's always a vector ... The non-MSI case, it's set to VIRTIO_MSI_NO_VECTOR, and we use a normal interrupt vector. > BTW, let's get rid of msix_enabled completely? > We can always use msix_vectors ... That would be nice. But yes, requiring more audit. Ideally, if msix_vectors == 0, implies intx_enabled. Thanks, Rusty. _______________________________________________ Virtualization mailing list Virtualization@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.linux-foundation.org/mailman/listinfo/virtualization
