Re: [PATCH v2 2/6] KVM: x86: decouple irqchip_in_kernel() and pic_irqchip()

[David Hildenbrand <david@redhat.com>]

Am 16.12.2016 um 16:10 schrieb Radim Krčmář:
> irqchip_in_kernel() tried to save a bit by reusing pic_irqchip(), but it
> just complicated the code.
> Add a separate state for the irqchip mode.
>
> Signed-off-by: Radim Krčmář <rkrcmar@redhat.com>
> ---
>  v2: change two bools into one enum and rename everything [Paolo]
> ---
>  arch/x86/include/asm/kvm_host.h |  8 +++++++-
>  arch/x86/kvm/irq.h              | 15 ++++++++-------
>  arch/x86/kvm/x86.c              |  5 +++--
>  3 files changed, 18 insertions(+), 10 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/arch/x86/include/asm/kvm_host.h b/arch/x86/include/asm/kvm_host.h
> index 7892530cbacf..d3acd295446d 100644
> --- a/arch/x86/include/asm/kvm_host.h
> +++ b/arch/x86/include/asm/kvm_host.h
> @@ -715,6 +715,12 @@ struct kvm_hv {
>  	HV_REFERENCE_TSC_PAGE tsc_ref;
>  };
>
> +enum kvm_irqchip_mode {
> +	KVM_IRQCHIP_NONE,
> +	KVM_IRQCHIP_KERNEL,       /* created with KVM_CREATE_IRQCHIP */
> +	KVM_IRQCHIP_SPLIT,        /* created with KVM_CAP_SPLIT_IRQCHIP */

Was wondering if FULL/SPLIT would be a better naming. However I also
find irqchip_kernel() vs irqchip_in_kernel() slightly confusing.

Anyhow, with the suggestion of Paolo included,

Reviewed-by: David Hildenbrand <david@redhat.com>

> +};


-- 

David