On Thu, Mar 14, 2013 at 08:03:30PM +0100, Alexander Graf wrote: > > On 14.03.2013, at 19:35, Scott Wood wrote: > > > On 03/14/2013 01:33:30 PM, Alexander Graf wrote: > >> We also want int pic_fd, no? > > > > Not sure we really need that on the vcpu. We'll need it on the vm unless > > we add it as an arg to the vcpu cap enable. > > I don't think we need anything vm global for the cpu <-> PIC connections. > Also, if you want to deregister a CPU (hotplug remove), you probably want to > tell the PIC that the CPU has gone.
I had kvm_arch_vcpu_free() calling a release function for the selected PIC, which should be enough to let the PIC know the CPU has gone away, I would think. I agree we don't need anything vm global. The only vm ioctl which needs to care about interrupt controllers is KVM_IRQ_LINE, and the approach I take in my patchset is just to call all of the compiled-in interrupt controllers until one of them takes it. That assumes that each irq architecture adds its own private data pointer to kvm->arch if it's compiled in, which is feasible provided there are only a few architectures supported, and gives the advantages of strong typing. I did it this way because with the irq architecture being specified per vcpu, there is no overall vm global irq architecture. Paul. -- 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
