From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@redhat.com>
Subject: Re: in-kernel interrupt controller steering
Date: Wed, 06 Mar 2013 15:12:40 +0100
Message-ID: <51374ED8.7010701@redhat.com>
References: <469599439.3185295.1362572055225.JavaMail.root@redhat.com> <1777B6DD-B341-4531-BE43-7B0161B1D093@suse.de> <20130306131424.GR11223@redhat.com> <FA9CF50F-09B8-4DE8-A2E6-0054E89DFD4A@suse.de> <20130306135605.GA13471@redhat.com> <8A2E7B22-8933-42CF-AD7D-6AC27F1E4B1F@suse.de>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Cc: Gleb Natapov <gleb@redhat.com>, kvm@vger.kernel.org,
	kvm-ppc@vger.kernel.org, Stuart Yoder <stuart.yoder@freescale.com>,
	Scott Wood <scottwood@freescale.com>,
	Paul Mackerras <paulus@samba.org>,
	Peter Maydell <peter.maydell@linaro.org>
To: Alexander Graf <agraf@suse.de>
Return-path: <kvm-ppc-owner@vger.kernel.org>
In-Reply-To: <8A2E7B22-8933-42CF-AD7D-6AC27F1E4B1F@suse.de>
Sender: kvm-ppc-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-Id: kvm.vger.kernel.org

Il 06/03/2013 15:03, Alexander Graf ha scritto:
> KVM_IRQ_LINE is basically an IOAPIC interrupt line assert. That's
> fine. That ioctl should get an ioapic device handle to work on.

It would be a KVM_SET_DEVICE_ATTR in your case, right?

> Whether we call the IOAPIC PINs GSIs or something different is really
> just a naming question. I'd probably call it IRQ number :).

Yup.

> So again, I'm failing to see where we think differently :).

I think we're not, just making sure that the existing x86 ioctls can be
clearly mapping to what you're proposed.

The only change that came up is the rename of KVM_CREATE_IRQCHIP_ARGS,
and the addition of a "none" type.  Everything else is just clarifying
the desired semantics (and Gleb correcting me on several accounts---I
hope I haven't caused more confusion).

Paolo