From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Avi Kivity Subject: Re: plan for device assignment upstream Date: Mon, 02 Jul 2012 12:29:37 +0300 Message-ID: <4FF16A01.2090007@redhat.com> References: <20120702091813.GF8268@redhat.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: Jan Kiszka , Marcelo Tosatti , Michael Tokarev , qemu-devel@nongnu.org, kvm To: "Michael S. Tsirkin" Return-path: In-Reply-To: <20120702091813.GF8268@redhat.com> List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: qemu-devel-bounces+gceq-qemu-devel=gmane.org@nongnu.org Sender: qemu-devel-bounces+gceq-qemu-devel=gmane.org@nongnu.org List-Id: kvm.vger.kernel.org On 07/02/2012 12:18 PM, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote: > I've been thinking hard about Jan's patches for device > assignment. Basically while I thought it makes sense > to make all devices: assignment and not - behave the > same and use same APIs for injecting irqs, Anthony thinks there is huge > value in making irq propagation hierarchical and device assignment > should be special cased. > > We seem to be at impasse for now and I think merging > assignment ASAP has higher value than this specific > issue. So I fold - let's do it as Anthony and Jan's > original patches proposed. > > Jan, can you please rebase and repost your original patchset (against > master, not against pci) that added query for host irqs callbacks for > device assignment? I'll re-review ignoring the idea of using the cache, > with intent apply after I'll drop cache code from the pci branch in a > couple of days (busy otherwise now). > > I still intend to rework this later on, but that can wait. Agree with both your ideas about the API and the decision to rework it in tree. -- error compiling committee.c: too many arguments to function