On 11/18/2010 04:22 AM, Sheng Yang wrote:
On Wednesday 17 November 2010 22:01:41 Avi Kivity wrote:
On 11/15/2010 11:15 AM, Sheng Yang wrote:
We need to query the entry later.
+int kvm_get_irq_routing_entry(struct kvm *kvm, int gsi,
+ struct kvm_kernel_irq_routing_entry
On Thu, Nov 18, 2010 at 11:30:47AM +0200, Avi Kivity wrote:
*entry may be stale after rcu_read_unlock(). Is this a problem?
I suppose not. All MSI-X MMIO accessing would be executed without delay, so
no re-
order issue would happen. If the guest is reading and writing the field at
On Thu, Nov 18, 2010 at 5:41 PM, Michael S. Tsirkin m...@redhat.com wrote:
On Thu, Nov 18, 2010 at 11:30:47AM +0200, Avi Kivity wrote:
*entry may be stale after rcu_read_unlock(). Is this a problem?
I suppose not. All MSI-X MMIO accessing would be executed without delay, so
no re-
On Thu, Nov 18, 2010 at 07:59:10PM +0800, Sheng Yang wrote:
On Thu, Nov 18, 2010 at 5:41 PM, Michael S. Tsirkin m...@redhat.com wrote:
On Thu, Nov 18, 2010 at 11:30:47AM +0200, Avi Kivity wrote:
*entry may be stale after rcu_read_unlock(). Is this a problem?
I suppose not. All
On Thu, Nov 18, 2010 at 8:33 PM, Michael S. Tsirkin m...@redhat.com wrote:
On Thu, Nov 18, 2010 at 07:59:10PM +0800, Sheng Yang wrote:
On Thu, Nov 18, 2010 at 5:41 PM, Michael S. Tsirkin m...@redhat.com wrote:
On Thu, Nov 18, 2010 at 11:30:47AM +0200, Avi Kivity wrote:
*entry may be
On 11/15/2010 11:15 AM, Sheng Yang wrote:
We need to query the entry later.
+int kvm_get_irq_routing_entry(struct kvm *kvm, int gsi,
+ struct kvm_kernel_irq_routing_entry *entry)
+{
+ int count = 0;
+ struct kvm_kernel_irq_routing_entry *ei = NULL;
+ struct
On Wednesday 17 November 2010 22:01:41 Avi Kivity wrote:
On 11/15/2010 11:15 AM, Sheng Yang wrote:
We need to query the entry later.
+int kvm_get_irq_routing_entry(struct kvm *kvm, int gsi,
+ struct kvm_kernel_irq_routing_entry *entry)
+{
+ int count = 0;
+ struct