Il 06/03/2013 15:03, Alexander Graf ha scritto: > KVM_IRQ_LINE is basically an IOAPIC interrupt line assert. That's > fine. That ioctl should get an ioapic device handle to work on.
It would be a KVM_SET_DEVICE_ATTR in your case, right? > Whether we call the IOAPIC PINs GSIs or something different is really > just a naming question. I'd probably call it IRQ number :). Yup. > So again, I'm failing to see where we think differently :). I think we're not, just making sure that the existing x86 ioctls can be clearly mapping to what you're proposed. The only change that came up is the rename of KVM_CREATE_IRQCHIP_ARGS, and the addition of a "none" type. Everything else is just clarifying the desired semantics (and Gleb correcting me on several accounts---I hope I haven't caused more confusion). Paolo -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe kvm" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
