Hi Pavel, On 07/07/2015 09:23 AM, Pavel Fedin wrote: > Hi! > >> I guess not. But I prefer the new type anyway, as it also has a known >> error path for older kernels. > > flags != 0 has known error path too, and it's absolutely the same. > Sorry, read this after writing my previous reply, so this is a short > addendum. > > I see lots of people agreed on a new type. If my argument about reusing > existing definitions is not > enough, you can ignore it. Three people beat one definitely. :) OK. let's move forward and use this new type. I will repost soon so everyone can re-check the fit at kvmtool/qemu.
Thanks Eric > And yes, since we are talking about it, actually KVM_MSI_VALID_DEVID flag is > not yet a part of > mainline, so it's not set in stone. Then, perhaps you could throw it away > completely and invent > KVM_SIGNAL_EXT_MSI ioctl for sending MSIs with device ID. This would also be > consistent IMO. > > Kind regards, > Pavel Fedin > Expert Engineer > Samsung Electronics Research center Russia > > -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [email protected] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
