From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Marcelo Tosatti <mtosatti@redhat.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] x86, apicv: Add Posted Interrupt supporting
Date: Fri, 8 Feb 2013 00:07:36 -0200
Message-ID: <20130208020736.GA10109@amt.cnet>
References: <20130204005700.GA2705@amt.cnet>
 <20130204095553.GK23213@redhat.com>
 <20130204144345.GA11328@amt.cnet>
 <20130204171301.GB10756@redhat.com>
 <20130204195952.GA15856@amt.cnet>
 <20130204204729.GA16442@amt.cnet>
 <20130205073250.GT23213@redhat.com>
 <20130206224923.GA12266@amt.cnet>
 <20130207002406.GA16493@amt.cnet>
 <20130207135223.GK7837@redhat.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Cc: "Zhang, Yang Z" <yang.z.zhang@intel.com>,
	"kvm@vger.kernel.org" <kvm@vger.kernel.org>,
	"Shan, Haitao" <haitao.shan@intel.com>,
	"Zhang, Xiantao" <xiantao.zhang@intel.com>,
	"Nakajima, Jun" <jun.nakajima@intel.com>,
	"Anvin, H Peter" <h.peter.anvin@intel.com>
To: Gleb Natapov <gleb@redhat.com>
Return-path: <kvm-owner@vger.kernel.org>
Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([209.132.183.28]:27530 "EHLO mx1.redhat.com"
	rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP
	id S1759466Ab3BHCHs (ORCPT <rfc822;kvm@vger.kernel.org>);
	Thu, 7 Feb 2013 21:07:48 -0500
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20130207135223.GK7837@redhat.com>
Sender: kvm-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-ID: <kvm.vger.kernel.org>

On Thu, Feb 07, 2013 at 03:52:24PM +0200, Gleb Natapov wrote:
> > Its not a bad idea to have a new KVM_REQ_ bit for PIR processing (just
> > as the current patches do).
> Without the numbers I do not see why.

KVM_REQ_EVENT already means... counting... many things. Its a well
defined request, to sync PIR->VIRR, don't see your point about
performance.