From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Paul Mackerras Subject: Re: [STRAWMAN PATCH] KVM: PPC: Add ioctl to specify interrupt controller architecture to emulate Date: Fri, 15 Mar 2013 09:02:41 +1100 Message-ID: <20130314220241.GH9841@iris.ozlabs.ibm.com> References: <20130314012619.GB12273@drongo> <1363284935.28440.8@snotra> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Cc: Alexander Graf , "kvm@vger.kernel.org" , "kvm-ppc@vger.kernel.org" , Gleb Natapov , Stuart Yoder To: Scott Wood Return-path: Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <1363284935.28440.8@snotra> Sender: kvm-ppc-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: kvm.vger.kernel.org On Thu, Mar 14, 2013 at 01:15:35PM -0500, Scott Wood wrote: > On 03/13/2013 08:26:20 PM, Paul Mackerras wrote: > >I arbitrarily > >assigned 0x58494353 for KVM_CAP_IRQ_XICS as the args[0] value to > >indicate XICS. > > Why is it called KVM_CAP_ if it's not a capability? Because it's associated with a capability. I'm not wedded to the name. > >I think it would be better if we don't have to get a > >new capability number assigned every time we want to add a new type of > >interrupt controller. > > How often does it really happen? If a simple enumeration is good > enough for identifying the main IRQ controller device type, it > should be good enough for identifying the vcpu irq arch. Whatever. I really don't care at this point, I'm just getting extremely tired of the bikeshedding. If you don't like it, propose something. Paul.