From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: eric.auger@linaro.org (Eric Auger)
Date: Thu, 02 Jul 2015 16:50:47 +0200
Subject: [PATCH 1/7] KVM: api: add kvm_irq_routing_extended_msi
In-Reply-To: <018f01d0b4a2$d74e29f0$85ea7dd0$@samsung.com>
References: <1435592237-17924-1-git-send-email-eric.auger@linaro.org>
 <1435592237-17924-2-git-send-email-eric.auger@linaro.org>
 <011f01d0b498$6a17aeb0$3e470c10$@samsung.com>
 <018f01d0b4a2$d74e29f0$85ea7dd0$@samsung.com>
Message-ID: <55954FC7.3070604@linaro.org>
To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org

On 07/02/2015 10:41 AM, Pavel Fedin wrote:
>  Hello!
> 
>> What if we use KVM_MSI_VALID_DEVID flag instead of new KVM_IRQ_ROUTING_EXTENDED_MSI
>> definition? I
>> believe this would make an API more consistent and introduce less new definitions.
> 
>  I have just found one more flaw in your implementation. If you take a look at irqfd_wakeup()...
> --- cut ---
> 		/* An event has been signaled, inject an interrupt */
> 		if (irq.type == KVM_IRQ_ROUTING_MSI)
> 			kvm_set_msi(&irq, kvm, KVM_USERSPACE_IRQ_SOURCE_ID, 1,
> 					false);
> 		else
> 			schedule_work(&irqfd->inject);
> --- cut ---
>  You apparently missed KVM_IRQ_ROUTING_EXTENDED_MSI here, as well as in irqfd_update(). But, if you
> accept my API proposal, this becomes irrelevant.

Hi Pavel,

thanks for spotting this bug. Whatever the user-api API choice I will
respin shortly fixing this  plus the one reported by Andr?.

Thanks for the review.

Best Regards

Eric


> 
> Kind regards,
> Pavel Fedin
> Expert Engineer
> Samsung Electronics Research center Russia
> 
>