Avi Kivity wrote: > On 03/08/2010 03:55 PM, Alexander Graf wrote: >> Avi Kivity wrote: >> >>> On 03/08/2010 03:48 PM, Alexander Graf wrote: >>> >>>> >>>> >>>>> How does userspace know they exist? >>>>> >>>>> >>>> #ifdef KVM_INTERRUPT_SET? MOL is the only user of this so far. And >>>> that >>>> won't work without the hypervisor call anyways. >>>> >>>> >>> We generally compile on one machine, and run on another. >>> >> So? Then IRQ unsetting doesn't work. Without this series you won't get >> much further than booting the kernel anyways because XER is broken, TLB >> flushes are broken and FPU loading is broken. So not being able to unset >> an IRQ line is the least of your problems :). >> > > There's a difference between an error message telling you to upgrade > to a kernel with KVM_CAP_BLAH and a failure. It's the difference > between a bug report and silence.
I see. So we can check for KVM_CAP_PPC_OSI and know that it's in the same patch series, also making KVM_INTERRUPT_XXX work, right? Or do you really want to have 500 capabilities for every single patch? 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
