From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Sheng Yang <sheng@linux.intel.com>
Subject: Userspace specific host irq?
Date: Thu, 8 Jan 2009 14:56:30 +0800
Message-ID: <200901081456.32082.sheng@linux.intel.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
  charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Cc: Avi Kivity <avi@redhat.com>, Weidong Han <weidong.han@intel.com>,
	Amit Shah <amit.shah@qumranet.com>,
	"Ben-Ami Yassour" <benami@il.ibm.com>
To: kvm@vger.kernel.org
Return-path: <kvm-owner@vger.kernel.org>
Received: from mga10.intel.com ([192.55.52.92]:1583 "EHLO
	fmsmga102.fm.intel.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-FAIL) by vger.kernel.org
	with ESMTP id S1751081AbZAHG4e (ORCPT <rfc822;kvm@vger.kernel.org>);
	Thu, 8 Jan 2009 01:56:34 -0500
Content-Disposition: inline
Sender: kvm-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-ID: <kvm.vger.kernel.org>

Hi all

This piece of code puzzled me at all time:

virt/kvm/kvm_main.c:assigned_device_update_intx()

> 		if (airq->host_irq)
> 			adev->host_irq = airq->host_irq;
> 		else
> 			adev->host_irq = adev->dev->irq;

I don't know why we can let userspace use a different host_irq rather than the 
real one.

I've queried Amit and Ben-Ami who are the original author about this question, 
and they also think this piece of code is redundancy. Send the question to the 
mailing list, if everyone agree, I would discard this one. 

Thanks!

-- 
regards
Yang, Sheng