From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Scott Wood <scottwood@freescale.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] KVM: Add KVM_CAP_IRQ_ARCH capability
Date: Thu, 14 Mar 2013 17:41:23 -0500
Message-ID: <1363300883.28440.19@snotra>
References: <20130314012044.GA12273@drongo> <1363285238.28440.9@snotra>
	<20130314221917.GI9841@iris.ozlabs.ibm.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; delsp=Yes; format=Flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8BIT
Cc: Alexander Graf <agraf@suse.de>, <kvm@vger.kernel.org>,
	<kvm-ppc@vger.kernel.org>
To: Paul Mackerras <paulus@samba.org>
Return-path: <kvm-ppc-owner@vger.kernel.org>
In-Reply-To: <20130314221917.GI9841@iris.ozlabs.ibm.com> (from
	paulus@samba.org on Thu Mar 14 17:19:17 2013)
Content-Disposition: inline
Sender: kvm-ppc-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-Id: kvm.vger.kernel.org

On 03/14/2013 05:19:17 PM, Paul Mackerras wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 14, 2013 at 01:20:38PM -0500, Scott Wood wrote:
> > On 03/13/2013 08:20:44 PM, Paul Mackerras wrote:
> 
> > >--- a/arch/powerpc/include/asm/kvm_host.h
> > >+++ b/arch/powerpc/include/asm/kvm_host.h
> > >@@ -373,6 +373,9 @@ struct kvmppc_booke_debug_reg {
> > > struct kvm_vcpu_arch {
> > > 	ulong host_stack;
> > > 	u32 host_pid;
> > >+
> > >+	u32 intr_ctrler;
> > >+
> >
> > That abbreviation seems a bit awkward, and we should also have a
> > private-data pointer.
> >
> > How about:
> >
> > 	u32 irq_arch;
> > 	void *irq_priv;
> 
> Regarding the irq_priv - in my patchset the XICS code adds its own
> private data pointer.  That has the advantage that it can be strongly
> typed, and if it is non-NULL then I know it points to XICS data, not
> the data for some other type of controller.  As long as we are only
> going to have a small number of IRQ architectures then it's feasible
> to allow each to have its own data pointer, and we get the advantages
> of strong typing.

OK.

> > >+			switch (cap->args[0]) {
> > >+			case 0:		/* no interrupt controller */
> > >+				break;
> >
> > s/0/KVM_IRQ_ARCH_NONE/
> >
> > ...at least so that this patch makes it clear where other type ids
> > should
> > be defined.
> 
> OK, whatever.

Well, it wouldn't be good for MPIC to end up defined in one place and  
XICS in another, especially if adding a definition is how new IDs are  
allocated...

-Scott