On 25 July 2012 16:58, Jan Kiszka <jan.kis...@siemens.com> wrote: > On 2012-07-25 17:56, Peter Maydell wrote: >> On 25 July 2012 16:55, Avi Kivity <a...@redhat.com> wrote: >>> On 07/25/2012 06:53 PM, Jan Kiszka wrote: >>>> We don't have a synchronous function anymore, it's part of the pre-run >>>> code of x86 IIRC. >>> >>> Right. There's a DPRINTF() there that talks about injection, too. So I >>> think this patch can be dropped. >> >> The main purpose of the patch is to remove 'irqchip' from the >> function name, because the function isn't restricted to use >> with in-kernel irqchips. > > Hmm, what was question again? Ah: Do we have an arch that implements it > without providing a (logical) irqchip? At least at this time (including > ARM)?
Well, it depends what you mean by 'irqchip' (part of the point of this series being that there isn't a coherent architecture independent definition of that and so we shouldn't use the term in architecture-independent code). On ARM we will use KVM_IRQ_LINE whether we have an in-kernel VGIC or not, because we always use async interrupt injection. (That is, the same arguments for "why should this function be guarded by kvm_async_interrupt_injection() rather than kvm_irqchip_in_kernel()?" apply to "why should this function not have 'irqchip' in the function name.) -- PMM
