On Tuesday 30 December 2008 18:31:16 Avi Kivity wrote: > Sheng Yang wrote: > > On Tuesday 30 December 2008 18:19:29 Avi Kivity wrote: > >> Sheng Yang wrote: > >>> For MSI disable feature later. > >>> > >>> Notice I changed ABI here, but due to no userspace patch, I think it's > >>> OK. > >> > >> It's not okay, since eventually we will have userspace and it will have > >> to work with older kernels as well. > >> > >> No released kernel has KVM_DEV_IRQ_ASSIGN_ENABLE_MSI, so it's fine, > >> provided I fold this into the 2.6.29 submission. However, why do this > >> at all? It can only cause confusion. > > > > If we have ENABLE_MSI, and DISABLE, and ENABLE_MSIX, and DISABLE, and > > MASK_MSIX, and UNMASK, every two action are in pairs but we have to use > > twice bits to store them. So I'd like to use MSI_ACTION approach... > > Well, it you have flags without ENABLE_MSI, doesn't it imply DISABLE_MSI? > > The structure contains the state we want to reach, not a command we wish > the kernel to perform.
Yes, that's what I want. But check more than one flags(for MSI-X) to determine where to go is not that clear. So I add a flag here to indicate the operation type which I think is a little more clear. -- regards Yang, Sheng -- 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
