From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk Subject: Re: Re: APIC rework Date: Mon, 30 Nov 2009 09:26:34 -0500 Message-ID: <20091130142634.GA19527@phenom.dumpdata.com> References: <706158FABBBA044BAD4FE898A02E4BC201CD3207E0@pdsmsx503.ccr.corp.intel.com> <706158FABBBA044BAD4FE898A02E4BC201CD3A074E@pdsmsx503.ccr.corp.intel.com> <20091124194401.GA29566@phenom.dumpdata.com> <4B0C6DBA.8060100@goop.org> <20091125141014.GB2586@phenom.dumpdata.com> <4B0D8206.6030001@goop.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Return-path: Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <4B0D8206.6030001@goop.org> List-Unsubscribe: , List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: xen-devel-bounces@lists.xensource.com Errors-To: xen-devel-bounces@lists.xensource.com To: Jeremy Fitzhardinge Cc: Xen-devel , "Han, Weidong" , Keir Fraser , "Zhang, Xiantao" , "Jiang, Yunhong" List-Id: xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org > > I don't particularly object to xenbus_walk per-se, its just that I don't > think xen_create_msi_irq() should call it directly. It would be OK for > xen_setup_msi_irqs() to call it and pass the results into > xen_create_msi_irq(). > > Would a registration list be any cleaner? Presumably you'd just keep a > list of devices being controlled by other domains, so non-presence on > the list means DOMID_SELF, so you'd only need to worry about > registration on pciback paths. If that could be done without needing to > touch common code (or do the horrible hacks that some of the earlier MSI > patches did), then maybe its worthwhile. I think that would work nicely. Should have a patch cooked up shortly after I am done with the xen-fbfront drier in DomU.