On Fri, 2015-07-10 at 11:00 +0800, Feng Wu wrote:
> Call update routine when updating irqfd, this can update the
> IRTE for Intel posted-interrupts.
>
> Signed-off-by: Feng Wu <feng...@intel.com>
> ---
> virt/kvm/eventfd.c | 4 +++-
> 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
>
> diff --git a/virt/kvm/eventfd.c b/virt/kvm/eventfd.c
> index a32cf6c..1226835 100644
> --- a/virt/kvm/eventfd.c
> +++ b/virt/kvm/eventfd.c
> @@ -570,8 +570,10 @@ void kvm_irq_routing_update(struct kvm *kvm)
>
> spin_lock_irq(&kvm->irqfds.lock);
>
> - list_for_each_entry(irqfd, &kvm->irqfds.items, list)
> + list_for_each_entry(irqfd, &kvm->irqfds.items, list) {
> irqfd_update(kvm, irqfd);
> + irqfd->consumer.update(&irqfd->consumer);
> + }
>
> spin_unlock_irq(&kvm->irqfds.lock);
> }
I don't understand why the irq bypass manager needs to know about this
update callback. We could just as easily make it be a function pointer
on the irqfd structure or maybe just open code it. It's defined by the
consumer and called by the consumer, the irq bypass manager shouldn't
know about it. Thanks,
Alex
--
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
