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 12:41:54 +0200 Message-ID: <4959FAF2.1000501@redhat.com> References: <1230616173-17723-1-git-send-email-sheng@linux.intel.com> <200812301826.13471.sheng@linux.intel.com> <4959F874.4090403@redhat.com> <200812301834.44318.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]:43756 "EHLO mx2.redhat.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751515AbYL3Kl6 (ORCPT ); Tue, 30 Dec 2008 05:41:58 -0500 In-Reply-To: <200812301834.44318.sheng@linux.intel.com> Sender: kvm-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: Sheng Yang wrote: >>> 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. >> > > Yes, that's what I want. But check more than one flags(for MSI-X) to determine > where to go is not that clear. So I add a flag here to indicate the operation > type which I think is a little more clear. > Don't understand. Do you mean MSI and MSI-X are mutually exclusive? If so, we can add a comment. -- error compiling committee.c: too many arguments to function