On Thu, Jun 28, 2012 at 11:03:16AM +0200, Cornelia Huck wrote: > On Thu, 28 Jun 2012 11:38:57 +0300 > "Michael S. Tsirkin" <[email protected]> wrote: > > > On Wed, Jun 27, 2012 at 04:24:30PM +0200, Cornelia Huck wrote: > > > On Tue, 26 Jun 2012 23:09:04 -0600 > > > Alex Williamson <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > Prune this down to just the struct kvm_irqfd so we can avoid > > > > changing function definition for every flag or field we use. > > > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Alex Williamson <[email protected]> > > > > > > I'm currently trying to find a way to make irqfd workable for s390 > > > which will likely include using a new field in kvm_irqfd, so I'd like > > > to have this change (and I also think it makes the code nicer to read). > > > So: > > > > > > Acked-by: Cornelia Huck <[email protected]> > > > > Unfortunately it looks like we are not sanitizing kvm_irqfd > > at all so we won't be able to use the padding :( > > We'll need a new ioctl instead. > > > > How about something like this as parameter for the new ioctl? > > struct kvm_irqfd2 { > __u32 fd; > __u32 flags; /* for things like deassign */ > __u64 type; /* determines the payload */ > union { > /* type traditional */ > struct { > __u32 gsi; > } trad; > /* type s390 */ > struct { > __u32 int_type; > __u32 parm; > __u64 parm64; > } s390; > __u8 pad[20]; > }; > } > > This could be combined with an arch or a per-kvm callback to keep the > generic code clean of architecture dependencies. > > Cornelia
Looks a bit weird - shouldn't all this be part of gsi routing? But no idea really, I don't see the big picture here. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe kvm" in the body of a message to [email protected] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
