From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: "Michael S. Tsirkin" <mst@redhat.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC][PATCH 28/45] qemu-kvm: msix: Drop tracking
	of used vectors
Date: Fri, 21 Oct 2011 09:54:27 +0200
Message-ID: <20111021075427.GB10633@redhat.com>
References: <20111018184024.GB8322@redhat.com> <4E9DD56A.2010704@web.de>
	<20111018214006.GB7216@redhat.com> <4E9DFA1D.4050905@web.de>
	<20111019005631.GA10634@redhat.com> <4E9E712C.8000905@web.de>
	<20111019090305.GA25794@redhat.com> <4E9EB1AF.7090406@siemens.com>
	<20111020220201.GA25588@redhat.com> <4EA11A96.20202@siemens.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Cc: Alex Williamson <alex.williamson@redhat.com>,
	Marcelo Tosatti <mtosatti@redhat.com>, Avi Kivity <avi@redhat.com>,
	"kvm@vger.kernel.org" <kvm@vger.kernel.org>,
	"qemu-devel@nongnu.org" <qemu-devel@nongnu.org>
To: Jan Kiszka <jan.kiszka@siemens.com>
Return-path: <qemu-devel-bounces+gceq-qemu-devel=gmane.org@nongnu.org>
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <4EA11A96.20202@siemens.com>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/options/qemu-devel>,
	<mailto:qemu-devel-request@nongnu.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.nongnu.org/archive/html/qemu-devel>
List-Post: <mailto:qemu-devel@nongnu.org>
List-Help: <mailto:qemu-devel-request@nongnu.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/qemu-devel>,
	<mailto:qemu-devel-request@nongnu.org?subject=subscribe>
Errors-To: qemu-devel-bounces+gceq-qemu-devel=gmane.org@nongnu.org
Sender: qemu-devel-bounces+gceq-qemu-devel=gmane.org@nongnu.org
List-Id: kvm.vger.kernel.org

On Fri, Oct 21, 2011 at 09:09:10AM +0200, Jan Kiszka wrote:
> On 2011-10-21 00:02, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> >>> Yes. But this still makes an API for acquiring per-vector resources a requirement.
> >>
> >> Yes, but a different one than current use/unuse.
> > 
> > What's wrong with use/unuse as an API? It's already in place
> > and virtio calls it.
> 
> Not for that purpose.
> It remains a useless API in the absence of KVM's
> requirements.
> 

Sorry, I don't understand. This can acquire whatever resources
necessary. It does not seem to make sense to rip it out
only to add a different one back in.

> > 
> >> And it will be an
> >> optional one, only for those devices that need to establish irq/eventfd
> >> channels.
> >>
> >> Jan
> > 
> > Not sure this should be up to the device.
> 
> The device provides the fd. At least it acquires and associates it.
> 
> Jan

It would surely be beneficial to be able to have a uniform
API so that devices don't need to be recoded to be moved
in this way.

> -- 
> Siemens AG, Corporate Technology, CT T DE IT 1
> Corporate Competence Center Embedded Linux