"Michael S. Tsirkin" <m...@redhat.com> writes: > On Mon, Jun 24, 2013 at 08:34:52AM -0500, Anthony Liguori wrote: >> Gleb Natapov <g...@redhat.com> writes: >> >> Isn't this more or less what Avi's previous proposal was around changing >> the APIC interfaces to userspace? >> >> Regards, >> >> Anthony Liguori > > While that's not very elegant, I think we can use the existing > interface for this: just encode things in a fake > "msi message" in the format that kernel expects.
This is, in fact, exactly what we do today. The MSI interfaces aren't for MSI. They are for sending messages to the APIC bus. What we should do is: #define KVM_SIGNAL_LAPIC KVM_SIGNAL_MSI #define KVM_IRQ_ROUTING_LAPIC KVM_IRQ_ROUTING_MSI And switch to using the new #defines in QEMU. That would make it more obvious where we need to refactor things. We currently hard code routing via a local APIC with MSI. We need to change this into a bus specific function that can choose the right interface. I think Power is fine with just doing all routing through the irqchip interface. We may need other routing interfaces for other architectures though. Regards, Anthony Liguori > >> > >> >> It seems like the only sane way to actually support (2) and (3). >> >> >> >> Regards, >> >> >> >> Anthony Liguori >> > >> > -- >> > Gleb.