From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@redhat.com>
Subject: Re: [v5 15/19] KVM: eventfd: add irq bypass consumer management
Date: Mon, 13 Jul 2015 15:47:23 +0200
Message-ID: <55A3C16B.4040502@redhat.com>
References: <1436780855-3617-1-git-send-email-feng.wu@intel.com>
 <1436780855-3617-16-git-send-email-feng.wu@intel.com>
 <55A3BA2D.9070707@linaro.org>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Cc: alex.williamson@redhat.com, joro@8bytes.org
To: Eric Auger <eric.auger@linaro.org>, Feng Wu <feng.wu@intel.com>,
	kvm@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Return-path: <linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org>
In-Reply-To: <55A3BA2D.9070707@linaro.org>
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-Id: kvm.vger.kernel.org

 13/07/2015 15:16, Eric Auger wrote:
>> >  
>> > +	irqfd->consumer.token = (void *)irqfd->eventfd;
>> > +	kvm_arch_irq_consumer_init(&irqfd->consumer);
> what if the architecture does not implement kvm_arch_irq_consumer_init?
> 
> Also you are using here this single function kvm_arch_irq_consumer_init
> to do some irq bypass manager settings + attaching your
> irqfd->arch_update cb which does not really relate to IRQ bypass
> manager. I think I preferred the approach where start/top/add/del were
> exposed separately ([RFC v2 5/6] KVM: introduce kvm_arch functions for
> IRQ bypass).
> 
> Why not adding another kvm_arch_irq_routing_update then, not necessarily
> linked to irq bypass manager.

Yes, I also preferred the dummy kvm_arch_* functions to this approach
with an init function.  You'd have to add dummy init functions anyway
for non-ARM, non-x86 architectures.

Paolo