From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Eric Auger Subject: Re: Extensions for KVM MSI related ioctls Date: Mon, 13 Jul 2015 16:24:23 +0200 Message-ID: <55A3CA17.1010500@linaro.org> References: <55A39231.4050904@arm.com> <55A3B090.6090002@redhat.com> <03b901d0bd70$6c2f4b50$448de1f0$@samsung.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: kvm@vger.kernel.org, 'Gleb Natapov' , 'Jan Kiszka' , 'Marcelo Tosatti' , kvmarm@lists.cs.columbia.edu, linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org To: Pavel Fedin , 'Paolo Bonzini' , 'Andre Przywara' Return-path: Received: from mail-wi0-f174.google.com ([209.85.212.174]:34505 "EHLO mail-wi0-f174.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751917AbbGMOYu (ORCPT ); Mon, 13 Jul 2015 10:24:50 -0400 Received: by wibud3 with SMTP id ud3so31299537wib.1 for ; Mon, 13 Jul 2015 07:24:49 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <03b901d0bd70$6c2f4b50$448de1f0$@samsung.com> Sender: kvm-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On 07/13/2015 03:32 PM, Pavel Fedin wrote: > Hello! > >> I think I prefer the flag. Offhand it sounds easier to add support for >> it to non-ARM architectures, compared to KVM_IRQ_ROUTING_EXTENDED_MSI. > > Actually i also voted for flag, because it is already introduced in (2), and i'm not a fan of > adding new definitions where we can reuse existing ones. IMHO using flag would make an API more > consistent. OK I will respin with user space flag. Andre, what about the kernel routing entry struct. You wanted me to get rid of KVM_IRQ_ROUTING_EXTENDED_MSI there too. Will you be able to manage a usespace wrong setting if the type is not set? Best Regards Eric > > Kind regards, > Pavel Fedin > Expert Engineer > Samsung Electronics Research center Russia > >