On Wed, May 20, 2009 at 09:38:58PM +0300, Blue Swirl wrote:
> On 5/20/09, Michael S. Tsirkin <m...@redhat.com> wrote:
> > On Wed, May 20, 2009 at 08:44:31PM +0300, Blue Swirl wrote:
> > > On 5/20/09, Michael S. Tsirkin <m...@redhat.com> wrote:
> > > > On Wed, May 20, 2009 at 08:21:01PM +0300, Blue Swirl wrote:
> > > > > On 5/20/09, Michael S. Tsirkin <m...@redhat.com> wrote:
> > > > > > define api for allocating/setting up msi-x irqs, and for updating
> > them
> > > > > > with msi-x vector information, supply implementation in ioapic.
> > Please
> > > > > > comment on this API: I intend to port my msi-x patch to work on
> > top of
> > > > > > it.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Signed-off-by: Michael S. Tsirkin <m...@redhat.com>
> > > > >
> > > > > Sparc64 also uses packets ("mondos", not implemented yet) for
> > > > > interrupt vector data, there the packet size is 8 * 64 bits.
> > > > > I think we should aim for a more generic API that covers this case
> > also.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Are you sure this is a good idea? MSI is tied to PCI, and PCI only has
> > > > MSI, not "mondos". What code would benefit from this abstraction?
> > >
> > > Sparc64 emulation, of course. I think also the API would be neater.
> >
> >
> > Since "mondos" are not interrupts, why use irqs for them?
>
> I just said above that they are used for interrupt vector data. What
> makes you think they are not interrupts?
I'm sorry, I don't really know anything about sparc.
All I am saying is that in PCI, interrupts never pass data,
so qemu_set_irq as it is now, is a good API to send them.
For the sparc feature you describe, you probably want to add
a message data parameter to qemu_set_irq, but it's not
really useful for MSI.
--
MST
_______________________________________________
Virtualization mailing list
Virtualization@lists.linux-foundation.org
https://lists.linux-foundation.org/mailman/listinfo/virtualization
