On 06.03.2013, at 15:37, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
> Il 06/03/2013 15:30, Alexander Graf ha scritto:
>>>>>> KVM_IRQ_LINE is basically an IOAPIC interrupt line assert. That's
>>>>>> fine. That ioctl should get an ioapic device handle to work on.
>>>>
>>>> It would be a KVM_SET_DEVICE_ATTR in your case, right?
>> No, it would be KVM_IRQ_LINE. It's basically a command ("do this
>> interrupt"), not an attribute modification. Unless we want to
>> implement the IRQ pin levels on the "IOAPIC" as attributes. Then it'd
>> be a SET_DEVICE_ATTR. But that makes edge interrupt injection harder
>> / less obvious ;).
>
> Why is it harder? You don't really inject interrupts, you inject
> changes of the pin status, don't you?
Because we need to somehow model irqfd as well at least for MSIs. So I'd prefer
to reuse the same interface :). Whether we plumb this behind a SET_DEVICE_ADDR
ioctl or behind a KVM_IRQ_LINE ioctl is something I don't care much about
though.
Since irqfd is essentially a command, it just feels more natural to treat it as
such.
Alex
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe kvm-ppc" in
the body of a message to [email protected]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
