On 07/02/2012 12:18 PM, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote: > I've been thinking hard about Jan's patches for device > assignment. Basically while I thought it makes sense > to make all devices: assignment and not - behave the > same and use same APIs for injecting irqs, Anthony thinks there is huge > value in making irq propagation hierarchical and device assignment > should be special cased. > > We seem to be at impasse for now and I think merging > assignment ASAP has higher value than this specific > issue. So I fold - let's do it as Anthony and Jan's > original patches proposed. > > Jan, can you please rebase and repost your original patchset (against > master, not against pci) that added query for host irqs callbacks for > device assignment? I'll re-review ignoring the idea of using the cache, > with intent apply after I'll drop cache code from the pci branch in a > couple of days (busy otherwise now). > > I still intend to rework this later on, but that can wait.
Agree with both your ideas about the API and the decision to rework it in tree. -- error compiling committee.c: too many arguments to function
