From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Pavel Fedin Subject: RE: [PATCH v2 14/15] KVM: arm64: implement MSI injection in ITS emulation Date: Tue, 04 Aug 2015 09:53:07 +0300 Message-ID: <00b101d0ce82$38caa7a0$aa5ff6e0$@samsung.com> References: <1436538111-4294-1-git-send-email-andre.przywara@arm.com> <1436538111-4294-15-git-send-email-andre.przywara@arm.com> <55BB7678.5080105@linaro.org> <55BE7BA1.40403@arm.com> <00a201d0cdb7$70a623f0$51f26bd0$@samsung.com> <55BF2F51.6020701@linaro.org> <00f101d0cdcd$146a6090$3d3f21b0$@samsung.com> <55BF8AB8.5050408@linaro.org> <55BF9FB0.6070804@arm.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: In-reply-to: <55BF9FB0.6070804@arm.com> Content-language: ru Sender: kvm-owner@vger.kernel.org To: 'Marc Zyngier' , 'Eric Auger' , 'Andre Przywara' , christoffer.dall@linaro.org, kvmarm@lists.cs.columbia.edu Cc: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org, kvm@vger.kernel.org List-Id: kvmarm@lists.cs.columbia.edu Hello! > I think this flag should be kept, as it really indicates what is valid > in the MSI structure. It also has other benefits such as making obvious > what userspace expects, which can then be checked against the kernel's > own expectations. I'm OK with the flag despite it's indeed a small bit redundant. But i see that kernel's policy is to have insurance against all possible and impossible bad inputs, and the flag really fits into the concept. Kind regards, Pavel Fedin Expert Engineer Samsung Electronics Research center Russia From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: p.fedin@samsung.com (Pavel Fedin) Date: Tue, 04 Aug 2015 09:53:07 +0300 Subject: [PATCH v2 14/15] KVM: arm64: implement MSI injection in ITS emulation In-Reply-To: <55BF9FB0.6070804@arm.com> References: <1436538111-4294-1-git-send-email-andre.przywara@arm.com> <1436538111-4294-15-git-send-email-andre.przywara@arm.com> <55BB7678.5080105@linaro.org> <55BE7BA1.40403@arm.com> <00a201d0cdb7$70a623f0$51f26bd0$@samsung.com> <55BF2F51.6020701@linaro.org> <00f101d0cdcd$146a6090$3d3f21b0$@samsung.com> <55BF8AB8.5050408@linaro.org> <55BF9FB0.6070804@arm.com> Message-ID: <00b101d0ce82$38caa7a0$aa5ff6e0$@samsung.com> To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org Hello! > I think this flag should be kept, as it really indicates what is valid > in the MSI structure. It also has other benefits such as making obvious > what userspace expects, which can then be checked against the kernel's > own expectations. I'm OK with the flag despite it's indeed a small bit redundant. But i see that kernel's policy is to have insurance against all possible and impossible bad inputs, and the flag really fits into the concept. Kind regards, Pavel Fedin Expert Engineer Samsung Electronics Research center Russia