From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: pbonzini@redhat.com (Paolo Bonzini) Date: Tue, 7 Jul 2015 15:22:34 +0200 Subject: [RFC v2 3/6] irq: bypass: Extend skeleton for ARM forwarding control In-Reply-To: References: <1436184692-20927-1-git-send-email-eric.auger@linaro.org> <1436184692-20927-4-git-send-email-eric.auger@linaro.org> <559BB167.1030603@redhat.com> <559BB463.6090406@redhat.com> <559BB642.5010701@redhat.com> Message-ID: <559BD29A.9000208@redhat.com> To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org On 07/07/2015 13:33, Wu, Feng wrote: >>> > > The need to store the consumer->producer link seems to be unique to >>> > > posted interrupts. It is difficult to say without seeing the PI code, >>> > > but I prefer to keep the bypass manager as small as possible. >> > >> > Fine. I will follow your suggestion! > If using the following changes, how can we assign 'prod', we need to use > container_of to get struct kvm_kernel_irqfd and then refer to 'prod', but > we cannot do this in irq_bypass_register_consumer(), right? It is a > common API. But we can only get the associated producer info inside > bypass manager, right? KVM's add_producer and del_producer callbacks do have a pointer to the producer. Paolo