On 06/07/2015 13:23, Andre Przywara wrote: > Hi Paolo, > > thanks for looking at this! > > On 06/07/15 12:07, Paolo Bonzini wrote: >> >> >> On 06/07/2015 12:37, Christoffer Dall wrote: >>> I don't view it as 'the kernel requires this' but as 'the kernel will >>> not complain with arbitrary error code if you set the devid flag' >>> capability, and it's up to userspace (as usual) to provide the correct >>> arguments for things to work, and up to the kernel to ensure we don't >>> crash the system etc. >>> >>> Thus, if you want to advertise it as a capability, I would rather call >>> it KVM_CAP_MSI_DEVID. >> >> I agree. Does userspace know that ITS guests always require devid? > > Well, as we are about to implement this: yes. But the issue is that MSI > injection and GSI routing code is generic PCI code in userland (at least > in kvmtool, guess in QEMU, too), so I don't want to pull in any kind of > ARM specific code in there. The idea is to always provide the device ID > from the PCI code (for PCI devices it's just the B/D/F triplet), but > only send it to the kernel if needed. Querying a KVM capability is > perfectly fine for this IMO.
Yes, I agree. Paolo -- 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/
