From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([208.118.235.92]:45279)
	by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71)
	(envelope-from <avi@redhat.com>) id 1Slcx1-00056E-E8
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Mon, 02 Jul 2012 05:29:51 -0400
Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71)
	(envelope-from <avi@redhat.com>) id 1Slcwv-0003Rf-7N
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Mon, 02 Jul 2012 05:29:46 -0400
Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([209.132.183.28]:52469)
	by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71)
	(envelope-from <avi@redhat.com>) id 1Slcwu-0003RZ-VX
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Mon, 02 Jul 2012 05:29:41 -0400
Message-ID: <4FF16A01.2090007@redhat.com>
Date: Mon, 02 Jul 2012 12:29:37 +0300
From: Avi Kivity <avi@redhat.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <20120702091813.GF8268@redhat.com>
In-Reply-To: <20120702091813.GF8268@redhat.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] plan for device assignment upstream
List-Id: <qemu-devel.nongnu.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/options/qemu-devel>,
	<mailto:qemu-devel-request@nongnu.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.nongnu.org/archive/html/qemu-devel>
List-Post: <mailto:qemu-devel@nongnu.org>
List-Help: <mailto:qemu-devel-request@nongnu.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/qemu-devel>,
	<mailto:qemu-devel-request@nongnu.org?subject=subscribe>
To: "Michael S. Tsirkin" <mst@redhat.com>
Cc: Jan Kiszka <jan.kiszka@siemens.com>, Marcelo Tosatti <mtosatti@redhat.com>, Michael Tokarev <mjt@tls.msk.ru>, qemu-devel@nongnu.org, kvm <kvm@vger.kernel.org>

On 07/02/2012 12:18 PM, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> I've been thinking hard about Jan's patches for device
> assignment. Basically while I thought it makes sense
> to make all devices: assignment and not - behave the
> same and use same APIs for injecting irqs, Anthony thinks there is huge
> value in making irq propagation hierarchical and device assignment
> should be special cased.
> 
> We seem to be at impasse for now and I think merging
> assignment ASAP has higher value than this specific
> issue. So I fold - let's do it as Anthony and Jan's
> original patches proposed.
> 
> Jan, can you please rebase and repost your original patchset (against
> master, not against pci) that added query for host irqs callbacks for
> device assignment? I'll re-review ignoring the idea of using the cache,
> with intent apply after I'll drop cache code from the pci branch in a
> couple of days (busy otherwise now).
> 
> I still intend to rework this later on, but that can wait.

Agree with both your ideas about the API and the decision to rework it
in tree.

-- 
error compiling committee.c: too many arguments to function