Am Montag, 5. November 2007 schrieb Arnd Bergmann: > Read again what I wrote above. I'm suggesting to have just one external > interrupt for virtio and use the generic IRQ abstraction to handle > everything that comes below that.
So you basically suggest to implement wrapper code around extint and lowcore memory to be able to use request_irq/free_irq? > > Plus I don't see a benefit from pretending to have an interrupt > > controller: virtio abstracts from this, and can well be implemented > > over extint and hypercall like Christian has done it. What's the > > problem you're trying to solve? > > Sorry, I can't find Christian's code right now, do you have a pointer > to the patches? The code was only used for our prototype hypervisor. I never posted these virtio patches as Rusty was quicker in changing virtio than I was able to re-add them to our prototype code. ;-) > I suspect that he has done exactly what I was trying to explain, except > that the implementation is not using the generic IRQ layer, which means > you're duplicating some of the code. I used one external interrupt and I reserved an area in lowcore for a 64bit extint parameter. (I use the same address as z/VM for the PFAULT token). I defined a hypercall in which the guest could specify this 64bit value for a given virtqueue. That allowed me to get the virtqueue pointer without looking it up in the list of (maybe many) virtqueues. Christian ------------------------------------------------------------------------- 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
