From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Avi Kivity Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/3] KVM: Add MSI_ACTION flag for assigned irq Date: Tue, 30 Dec 2008 12:31:16 +0200 Message-ID: <4959F874.4090403@redhat.com> References: <1230616173-17723-1-git-send-email-sheng@linux.intel.com> <1230616173-17723-2-git-send-email-sheng@linux.intel.com> <4959F5B1.60100@redhat.com> <200812301826.13471.sheng@linux.intel.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: kvm@vger.kernel.org To: Sheng Yang Return-path: Received: from mx2.redhat.com ([66.187.237.31]:44611 "EHLO mx2.redhat.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751501AbYL3KbU (ORCPT ); Tue, 30 Dec 2008 05:31:20 -0500 In-Reply-To: <200812301826.13471.sheng@linux.intel.com> Sender: kvm-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: Sheng Yang wrote: > On Tuesday 30 December 2008 18:19:29 Avi Kivity wrote: > >> Sheng Yang wrote: >> >>> For MSI disable feature later. >>> >>> Notice I changed ABI here, but due to no userspace patch, I think it's >>> OK. >>> >> It's not okay, since eventually we will have userspace and it will have >> to work with older kernels as well. >> >> No released kernel has KVM_DEV_IRQ_ASSIGN_ENABLE_MSI, so it's fine, >> provided I fold this into the 2.6.29 submission. However, why do this >> at all? It can only cause confusion. >> > > If we have ENABLE_MSI, and DISABLE, and ENABLE_MSIX, and DISABLE, and > MASK_MSIX, and UNMASK, every two action are in pairs but we have to use twice > bits to store them. So I'd like to use MSI_ACTION approach... > Well, it you have flags without ENABLE_MSI, doesn't it imply DISABLE_MSI? The structure contains the state we want to reach, not a command we wish the kernel to perform. -- error compiling committee.c: too many arguments to function