From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Avi Kivity Subject: Re: Should we move kvm_vcpu_ioctl_interrupt to arch? Date: Wed, 28 Nov 2007 11:58:17 +0200 Message-ID: <474D3BB9.4080104@qumranet.com> References: <42DFA526FC41B1429CE7279EF83C6BDCA3911D@pdsmsx415.ccr.corp.intel.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: kvm-devel-5NWGOfrQmneRv+LV9MX5uipxlwaOVQ5f@public.gmane.org, cotte-tA70FqPdS9bQT0dZR+AlfA@public.gmane.org, hollisb-r/Jw6+rmf7HQT0dZR+AlfA@public.gmane.org To: "Zhang, Xiantao" Return-path: In-Reply-To: <42DFA526FC41B1429CE7279EF83C6BDCA3911D-wq7ZOvIWXbMAbVU2wMM1CrfspsVTdybXVpNB7YpNyf8@public.gmane.org> List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: kvm-devel-bounces-5NWGOfrQmneRv+LV9MX5uipxlwaOVQ5f@public.gmane.org Errors-To: kvm-devel-bounces-5NWGOfrQmneRv+LV9MX5uipxlwaOVQ5f@public.gmane.org List-Id: kvm.vger.kernel.org Zhang, Xiantao wrote: > Hi, Avi > Since IA64's irqchip is always in kernel side, so we don't need > kvm_vcpu_ioctl_interrupt for irq delivery. Should we moved it to arch? > Otherwise, we have to define two unnecessary fields(irq_summary and > irq_pending) for vcpu structure for compile pass. > Yes, it can be x86 specific (or arch specific if somebody else wants it). -- error compiling committee.c: too many arguments to function ------------------------------------------------------------------------- SF.Net email is sponsored by: The Future of Linux Business White Paper from Novell. From the desktop to the data center, Linux is going mainstream. Let it simplify your IT future. http://altfarm.mediaplex.com/ad/ck/8857-50307-18918-4