From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: eric.auger@linaro.org (Eric Auger) Date: Fri, 03 Jul 2015 08:54:56 +0200 Subject: [RFC 12/17] irq: bypass: Extend skeleton for ARM forwarding control In-Reply-To: References: <1435843047-6327-1-git-send-email-eric.auger@linaro.org> <1435843047-6327-13-git-send-email-eric.auger@linaro.org> <55953F5F.9090203@redhat.com> Message-ID: <559631C0.4050806@linaro.org> To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org Paolo, On 07/03/2015 04:24 AM, Wu, Feng wrote: > > >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Wu, Feng >> Sent: Friday, July 03, 2015 10:20 AM >> To: Paolo Bonzini; Eric Auger; eric.auger at st.com; >> linux-arm-kernel at lists.infradead.org; kvmarm at lists.cs.columbia.edu; >> kvm at vger.kernel.org; christoffer.dall at linaro.org; marc.zyngier at arm.com; >> alex.williamson at redhat.com; avi.kivity at gmail.com; mtosatti at redhat.com; >> joro at 8bytes.org; b.reynal at virtualopensystems.com >> Cc: linux-kernel at vger.kernel.org; patches at linaro.org; Wu, Feng >> Subject: RE: [RFC 12/17] irq: bypass: Extend skeleton for ARM forwarding >> control >> >> >> >>> -----Original Message----- >>> From: Paolo Bonzini [mailto:pbonzini at redhat.com] >>> Sent: Thursday, July 02, 2015 9:41 PM >>> To: Eric Auger; eric.auger at st.com; linux-arm-kernel at lists.infradead.org; >>> kvmarm at lists.cs.columbia.edu; kvm at vger.kernel.org; >>> christoffer.dall at linaro.org; marc.zyngier at arm.com; >>> alex.williamson at redhat.com; avi.kivity at gmail.com; mtosatti at redhat.com; >>> Wu, Feng; joro at 8bytes.org; b.reynal at virtualopensystems.com >>> Cc: linux-kernel at vger.kernel.org; patches at linaro.org >>> Subject: Re: [RFC 12/17] irq: bypass: Extend skeleton for ARM forwarding >>> control >>> >>> >>> >>> On 02/07/2015 15:17, Eric Auger wrote: >>>> - new fields are added on producer side: linux irq, vfio_device handle, >>>> active which reflects whether the source is active (at interrupt >>>> controller level or at VFIO level - automasked -) and finally an >>>> opaque pointer which will be used to point to the vfio_platform_device >>>> in this series. >>> >>> Linux IRQ and active should be okay. As to the vfio_device handle, you >>> should link it from the vfio_platform_device instead. And for the >>> vfio_platform_device, you can link it from the vfio_platform_irq instead. >>> >>> Once you've done this, embed the irq_bypass_producer struct in the >>> vfio_platform_irq struct; in the new kvm_arch_* functions, go back to >>> the vfio_platform_irq struct via container_of. From there you can >>> retrieve pointers to the vfio_platform_device and the vfio_device. >>> >>>> - new fields on consumer side: the kvm handle, the gsi >>> >>> You do not need to add these. Instead, add the kvm handle to irqfd >>> only. Like above, embed the irq_bypass_consumer struct in the irqfd >>> struct; in the new kvm_arch_* functions, go back to the >>> vfio_platform_irq struct via container_of. >>> >> >> I also need the gsi field here, for posted-interrupts, I need 'gsi', 'irq' to >> update the IRTE. > > Oh... we can get gsi from irq_bypass_consumer -> _irqfd -> gsi, so it > is not needed in irq_bypass_consumer. Got it! :) The issue I have is that struct _irqfd is local to eventfd.c so it cannot be used in archi specific code. Is it acceptable to move it to kvm_host.h, naming it something like kvm_kernel_irqfd (as done for kvm_kernel_irq_routing_entry)? Would also need to move _irqfd_resampler there (kvm_kernel_irqfd_resampler). irqfd user struct cannot be used in a standalone manner since we miss the kvm handle. Thanks Eric > > Thanks, > Feng > >> >> Thanks, >> Feng >> >> >>> Paolo