From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: "Michael S. Tsirkin" Subject: Re: [PATCH] KVM: Allow host IRQ sharing for assigned PCI 2.3 devices Date: Tue, 10 Jan 2012 22:44:26 +0200 Message-ID: <20120110204425.GK17105@redhat.com> References: <4F0AF394.6000205@siemens.com> <20120110161748.GB17105@redhat.com> <4F0C758F.1060606@siemens.com> <20120110181014.GE17105@redhat.com> <4F0C818D.9@siemens.com> <20120110183143.GG17105@redhat.com> <4F0C86D8.3070007@siemens.com> <20120110190425.GH17105@redhat.com> <4F0C944B.7040101@web.de> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Cc: Avi Kivity , Marcelo Tosatti , kvm , Alex Williamson , Jesse Barnes To: Jan Kiszka Return-path: Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([209.132.183.28]:11381 "EHLO mx1.redhat.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1755288Ab2AJUmS (ORCPT ); Tue, 10 Jan 2012 15:42:18 -0500 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <4F0C944B.7040101@web.de> Sender: kvm-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On Tue, Jan 10, 2012 at 08:40:59PM +0100, Jan Kiszka wrote: > On 2012-01-10 20:04, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote: > >>> But IMO this > >>> shows it is a more generic interface. > >> > >> I'm worried about adding something new that will soon become obsolete > >> again. That's wasted effort IMHO unless we say today that there will be > >> no in-kernel MSI-X support. > >> > >> Jan > > > > Yes. But as we are adding a new interface maybe it's better to add a > > more generic one? I don't insist as I don't have a specific proposal, > > just something to consider. > > I could imagine defining an extensible IRQ masking interface, e.g. with > flags that select the type, but only implementing it for INTx for now. > > Jan > I guess if we pass in the IRQ# the type can be inferred and does not need to be passed in. -- MST