From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: "Michael S. Tsirkin" Subject: Re: [KVM PATCH v10] kvm: add support for irqfd Date: Sun, 14 Jun 2009 16:30:35 +0300 Message-ID: <20090614133035.GD10646@redhat.com> References: <20090520142234.22285.72274.stgit@dev.haskins.net> <20090614092542.GA4833@redhat.com> <4A34EFD9.7010303@novell.com> <20090614131937.GA10646@redhat.com> <4A34F9D8.5040306@redhat.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Cc: Gregory Haskins , kvm@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, davidel@xmailserver.org, mtosatti@redhat.com To: Avi Kivity Return-path: Received: from mx2.redhat.com ([66.187.237.31]:57515 "EHLO mx2.redhat.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753233AbZFNNaq (ORCPT ); Sun, 14 Jun 2009 09:30:46 -0400 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <4A34F9D8.5040306@redhat.com> Sender: kvm-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On Sun, Jun 14, 2009 at 04:23:36PM +0300, Avi Kivity wrote: > Michael S. Tsirkin wrote: > > > >>> I think Avi asked for this specific feature during review which is the >>> reason why its there today. However, I agree that it would probably be >>> a good idea to put an upper limit on the number of supported aliases >>> that can be registered. Will fix. >>> >>> Thanks Michael, >>> >>> -Greg >>> >>> >>> >> >> >> Avi, can you elaborate on why do we want to map multiple fds >> to the same gsi? I think it's better to allow a 1:1 mapping >> only: if many processes want to trigger interrupts they can >> all write to the same fd. >> > > I don't want to assume that the eventfds all come from the same source. > > That said, we have a workaround, allocate a new gsi with the same routes > and attach the excess eventfds there. Right. So you are ok with 1:1 irqfd:gsi requirement for now? This seems nicer than N:1 with an arbitrary N. -- MST