Gleb Natapov wrote on 2013-02-25: > On Mon, Feb 25, 2013 at 08:42:52AM +0000, Zhang, Yang Z wrote: >> Avi Kivity wrote on 2013-02-25: >>> I didn't really follow, but is the root cause the need to keep track >>> of interrupt coalescing? If so we can recommend that users use >>> KVM_IRQ_LINE when coalescing is unneeded, and move interrupt injection >>> with irq coalescing support to vcpu context. >> So we can hide the capability KVM_CAP_IRQ_INJECT_STATUS when posted > interrupt is enabled to force users doesn't to use KVM_IRQ_LINE_STATUS. Does > this acceptable? >> >> The only case in KVM that need to know the interrupt injection status is >> vlapic > timer. But since vlapic timer and vcpu are always in same pcpu, so there is no > problem. >> > Not really. The primary user of this interface is RTC interrupt > re-injection for Windows guests. So without KVM_IRQ_LINE_STATUS capability, RTC cannot work well?
Best regards, Yang -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe kvm" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
