Carsten Otte wrote: > Dong, Eddie wrote: >> IA64/KVM will handle interrupt in kernel including IPI IMO, so what >> user level need to tell kernel is which platform IRQ pin is >> set/cleared. >> >> Can't S390 do in similar way? From platform point of view, each >> irq can have a unique # and the device itself doesn;t need to know >> which CPU will receive it. Are talking about having your interrupt >> controller in user space? or I missed something. > We don't have interrupt controllers in the first place, and therefore > we don't need to emulate them. We want to handle IPI inside the kernel > too, and we also need to be able to inject interrupts from userspace. > Would you be able to encode your interrupt related information into an > __u64 data type? Do all CPUs have the same interrupts pending, or is > the information per-cpu? Does the data structure that Avi suggested > fit your interrupt injection needs? > > struct kvm_interrupt { > __u64 vector; > __u32 size; /* bytes, must be multiple of 8 */ > __u32 pad; __u64 cpuset[0]; > };
Since IA64 & X86 doesn't carry CPU info in the KVM_IRQ_LINE, only irq # is carried, so a u32 is enough, but definitely structure like above can be too. BTW, why we use vector here? shouldn't it be irq_line or irq_no? Eddie ------------------------------------------------------------------------- This SF.net email is sponsored by: Splunk Inc. Still grepping through log files to find problems? Stop. Now Search log events and configuration files using AJAX and a browser. Download your FREE copy of Splunk now >> http://get.splunk.com/ _______________________________________________ kvm-devel mailing list kvm-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/kvm-devel