On 11/18/2010 03:14 PM, Gleb Natapov wrote:
On Thu, Nov 18, 2010 at 03:03:37PM +0200, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote: > > >+static inline void kvm_irq_routing_update(struct kvm *kvm, > > >+ struct kvm_irq_routing_table *irq_rt) > > >+{ > > >+ rcu_assign_pointer(kvm->irq_routing, irq_rt); > > >+} > > >+ > > > static inline int kvm_ioeventfd(struct kvm *kvm, struct kvm_ioeventfd *args) > > > { > > > return -ENOSYS; > > > > Apart from these minor issues, looks good. > > > Something we should consider improving is the loop over all VCPUs that > kvm_irq_delivery_to_apic invokes. I think that (for non-broadcast > interrupts) it should be possible to precompute an store the CPU > in question as part of the routing entry. > > Something for a separate patch ... comments? > I do not think this info should be part of routing entry. Routing entry is more about describing wires on the board. Other then that this is a good idea that, IIRC, we already discussed once.
Not as part of the routing entry exposed to userspace. But as a private kernel field, why not?
-- error compiling committee.c: too many arguments to function -- 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
