From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Sheng Yang Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/3] KVM: Add MSI_ACTION flag for assigned irq Date: Tue, 30 Dec 2008 18:48:30 +0800 Message-ID: <200812301848.30319.sheng@linux.intel.com> References: <1230616173-17723-1-git-send-email-sheng@linux.intel.com> <200812301834.44318.sheng@linux.intel.com> <4959FAF2.1000501@redhat.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: kvm@vger.kernel.org To: Avi Kivity Return-path: Received: from mga10.intel.com ([192.55.52.92]:56029 "EHLO fmsmga102.fm.intel.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-FAIL) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753052AbYL3Ksg (ORCPT ); Tue, 30 Dec 2008 05:48:36 -0500 In-Reply-To: <4959FAF2.1000501@redhat.com> Content-Disposition: inline Sender: kvm-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On Tuesday 30 December 2008 18:41:54 Avi Kivity wrote: > Sheng Yang wrote: > >>> MASK_MSIX, and UNMASK, every two action are in pairs but we have to use > >>> twice bits to store them. So I'd like to use MSI_ACTION approach... > >> > >> Well, it you have flags without ENABLE_MSI, doesn't it imply > >> DISABLE_MSI? > >> > >> The structure contains the state we want to reach, not a command we wish > >> the kernel to perform. > > > > Yes, that's what I want. But check more than one flags(for MSI-X) to > > determine where to go is not that clear. So I add a flag here to indicate > > the operation type which I think is a little more clear. > > Don't understand. Do you mean MSI and MSI-X are mutually exclusive? > > If so, we can add a comment. Yes, MSI/MSI-X are mutually exclusive. OK, I will try to keep this, just hope the logic of code won't become too complicate.. -- regards Yang, Sheng