On 14 August 2012 08:42, Jan Kiszka <jan.kis...@web.de> wrote: > On 2012-08-14 09:40, Peter Maydell wrote: >> On 14 August 2012 08:33, Jan Kiszka <jan.kis...@web.de> wrote: >>> KVM_IRQ_LINE is old-style, deprecated, KVM_IRQ_LINE_STATUS (i.e >>> injection with feedback to allow lost-tick compensation) is the current >>> standard that other archs should pick up. >> >> Can it be documented in the kernel api.txt then, please? Nobody >> is going to use it otherwise... (If I'd been paying attention at the >> time I'd have nak'd the qemu patches that added it on the grounds >> they were using an undocumented kernel API :-)) > > The kernel API's documentation has in fact a much younger history than > KVM support in QEMU. I think we still need to add quite a few standard > IOCTLs to make it complete. Patches always welcome.
Well, you appear to know what this variant ioctl does and why it's better than KVM_IRQ_LINE, whereas I don't. I just want to deliver an interrupt, KVM_IRQ_LINE lets me deliver an interrupt, why do I need anything more? (What would I do with the status return, for instance? I have to assert the incoming irq line, there's nothing for me to do if the kernel says "sorry, can't do that" except abort qemu.) -- PMM
