Hello!
> -----Original Message-----
> From: kvm-ow...@vger.kernel.org [mailto:kvm-ow...@vger.kernel.org] On Behalf
> Of Eric Auger
> Sent: Monday, June 29, 2015 6:37 PM
> To: eric.au...@st.com; eric.au...@linaro.org;
> linux-arm-ker...@lists.infradead.org;
> marc.zyng...@arm.com; christoffer.d...@linaro.org; andre.przyw...@arm.com;
> kvm...@lists.cs.columbia.edu; k...@vger.kernel.org
> Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org; patc...@linaro.org; p.fe...@samsung.com;
> pbonz...@redhat.com
> Subject: [PATCH 1/7] KVM: api: add kvm_irq_routing_extended_msi
>
> On ARM, the MSI msg (address and data) comes along with
> out-of-band device ID information. The device ID encodes the device
> that composes the MSI msg. Let's create a new routing entry type,
> dubbed KVM_IRQ_ROUTING_EXTENDED_MSI and use the __u32 pad space
> to convey the device ID.
>
> Signed-off-by: Eric Auger <eric.au...@linaro.org>
>
> ---
>
> RFC -> PATCH
> - remove kvm_irq_routing_extended_msi and use union instead
> ---
> Documentation/virtual/kvm/api.txt | 9 ++++++++-
> include/uapi/linux/kvm.h | 6 +++++-
> 2 files changed, 13 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/Documentation/virtual/kvm/api.txt
> b/Documentation/virtual/kvm/api.txt
> index d20fd94..6426ae9 100644
> --- a/Documentation/virtual/kvm/api.txt
> +++ b/Documentation/virtual/kvm/api.txt
> @@ -1414,7 +1414,10 @@ struct kvm_irq_routing_entry {
> __u32 gsi;
> __u32 type;
> __u32 flags;
> - __u32 pad;
> + union {
> + __u32 pad;
> + __u32 devid;
> + };
> union {
> struct kvm_irq_routing_irqchip irqchip;
> struct kvm_irq_routing_msi msi;
devid is actually a part of MSI bunch. Shouldn't it be a part of struct
kvm_irq_routing_msi then?
It also has reserved pad.
> @@ -1427,6 +1430,10 @@ struct kvm_irq_routing_entry {
> #define KVM_IRQ_ROUTING_IRQCHIP 1
> #define KVM_IRQ_ROUTING_MSI 2
> #define KVM_IRQ_ROUTING_S390_ADAPTER 3
> +#define KVM_IRQ_ROUTING_EXTENDED_MSI 4
> +
> +In case of KVM_IRQ_ROUTING_EXTENDED_MSI routing type, devid is used to convey
> +the device ID.
>
> No flags are specified so far, the corresponding field must be set to zero.
What if we use KVM_MSI_VALID_DEVID flag instead of new
KVM_IRQ_ROUTING_EXTENDED_MSI definition? I
believe this would make an API more consistent and introduce less new
definitions.
>
> diff --git a/include/uapi/linux/kvm.h b/include/uapi/linux/kvm.h
> index 2a23705..8484681 100644
> --- a/include/uapi/linux/kvm.h
> +++ b/include/uapi/linux/kvm.h
> @@ -841,12 +841,16 @@ struct kvm_irq_routing_s390_adapter {
> #define KVM_IRQ_ROUTING_IRQCHIP 1
> #define KVM_IRQ_ROUTING_MSI 2
> #define KVM_IRQ_ROUTING_S390_ADAPTER 3
> +#define KVM_IRQ_ROUTING_EXTENDED_MSI 4
>
> struct kvm_irq_routing_entry {
> __u32 gsi;
> __u32 type;
> __u32 flags;
> - __u32 pad;
> + union {
> + __u32 pad;
> + __u32 devid;
> + };
> union {
> struct kvm_irq_routing_irqchip irqchip;
> struct kvm_irq_routing_msi msi;
> --
> 1.9.1
>
> --
> 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
Kind regards,
Pavel Fedin
Expert Engineer
Samsung Electronics Research center Russia
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
