From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Pavel Fedin <p.fedin@samsung.com>
Subject: RE: [PATCH 1/7] KVM: api: add kvm_irq_routing_extended_msi
Date: Tue, 07 Jul 2015 10:23:29 +0300
Message-ID: <014d01d0b885$d3228380$79678a80$@samsung.com>
References: <1435592237-17924-1-git-send-email-eric.auger@linaro.org>
 <1435592237-17924-2-git-send-email-eric.auger@linaro.org>
 <011f01d0b498$6a17aeb0$3e470c10$@samsung.com> <5596503E.6040902@arm.com>
 <00fd01d0b7b6$f6cf3550$e46d9ff0$@samsung.com> <559A3C9C.6050302@arm.com>
 <20150706093026.GA11590@cbox> <559A52E6.5050402@arm.com>
 <20150706103755.GC11590@cbox> <559A6164.1000401@redhat.com>
 <559A6527.1040107@arm.com> <559A6BBC.2040901@redhat.com>
 <024301d0b7f0$2b13b410$813b1c30$@samsung.com> <559A9854.2090607@linaro.org>
 <559AA449.80705@arm.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Cc: eric.auger@st.com, kvm@vger.kernel.org,
 'Marc Zyngier' <Marc.Zyngier@arm.com>, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
 kvmarm@lists.cs.columbia.edu, linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
To: 'Andre Przywara' <andre.przywara@arm.com>,
 'Eric Auger' <eric.auger@linaro.org>, 'Paolo Bonzini' <pbonzini@redhat.com>,
 'Christoffer Dall' <christoffer.dall@linaro.org>
Return-path: <kvmarm-bounces@lists.cs.columbia.edu>
In-reply-to: <559AA449.80705@arm.com>
Content-language: ru
List-Unsubscribe: <https://lists.cs.columbia.edu/mailman/options/kvmarm>,
 <mailto:kvmarm-request@lists.cs.columbia.edu?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://lists.cs.columbia.edu/pipermail/kvmarm>
List-Post: <mailto:kvmarm@lists.cs.columbia.edu>
List-Help: <mailto:kvmarm-request@lists.cs.columbia.edu?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://lists.cs.columbia.edu/mailman/listinfo/kvmarm>,
 <mailto:kvmarm-request@lists.cs.columbia.edu?subject=subscribe>
Errors-To: kvmarm-bounces@lists.cs.columbia.edu
Sender: kvmarm-bounces@lists.cs.columbia.edu
List-Id: kvm.vger.kernel.org

 Hi!

> I guess not. But I prefer the new type anyway, as it also has a known
> error path for older kernels.

 flags != 0 has known error path too, and it's absolutely the same.
 Sorry, read this after writing my previous reply, so this is a short addendum.

 I see lots of people agreed on a new type. If my argument about reusing existing definitions is not
enough, you can ignore it. Three people beat one definitely. :)
 And yes, since we are talking about it, actually KVM_MSI_VALID_DEVID flag is not yet a part of
mainline, so it's not set in stone. Then, perhaps you could throw it away completely and invent
KVM_SIGNAL_EXT_MSI ioctl for sending MSIs with device ID. This would also be consistent IMO.

Kind regards,
Pavel Fedin
Expert Engineer
Samsung Electronics Research center Russia