Move the init of the irqchip_inject_ioctl field of KVMState out of
kvm_irqchip_create() and into kvm_init(), so that kvm_set_irq()
can be used even when no irqchip is created (for architectures
that support async interrupt notification even without an in
kernel irqchip).
Signed-off-by: Peter Mayde
Ping? I don't think this one quite made it into Avi's pullreq...
thanks
-- PMM
On 6 August 2012 18:05, Peter Maydell wrote:
> Move the init of the irqchip_inject_ioctl field of KVMState out of
> kvm_irqchip_create() and into kvm_init(), so that kvm_set_irq()
> can be used even when no irqchip is
On Sun, Aug 12, 2012 at 02:13:52PM +0100, Peter Maydell wrote:
> Ping? I don't think this one quite made it into Avi's pullreq...
Please post this with the rest of the code to support the new
s->irqchip_inject_ioctl value.
> thanks
> -- PMM
>
> On 6 August 2012 18:05, Peter Maydell wrote:
> > M
On 13 August 2012 21:45, Marcelo Tosatti wrote:
> On Sun, Aug 12, 2012 at 02:13:52PM +0100, Peter Maydell wrote:
>> Ping? I don't think this one quite made it into Avi's pullreq...
>
> Please post this with the rest of the code to support the new
> s->irqchip_inject_ioctl value.
Er, which new irq
On 2012-08-06 19:05, Peter Maydell wrote:
> Move the init of the irqchip_inject_ioctl field of KVMState out of
> kvm_irqchip_create() and into kvm_init(), so that kvm_set_irq()
> can be used even when no irqchip is created (for architectures
> that support async interrupt notification even without
On 2012-08-06 19:05, Peter Maydell wrote:
> Move the init of the irqchip_inject_ioctl field of KVMState out of
> kvm_irqchip_create() and into kvm_init(), so that kvm_set_irq()
> can be used even when no irqchip is created (for architectures
> that support async interrupt notification even without
On 14 August 2012 08:33, Jan Kiszka wrote:
> Either you move both or none.
OK.
> 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 kern
On 2012-08-14 09:40, Peter Maydell wrote:
> On 14 August 2012 08:33, Jan Kiszka wrote:
>> Either you move both or none.
>
> OK.
>
>> 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 a
On 14 August 2012 08:42, Jan Kiszka wrote:
> On 2012-08-14 09:40, Peter Maydell wrote:
>> On 14 August 2012 08:33, Jan Kiszka 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 ot
On 2012-08-14 09:52, Peter Maydell wrote:
> On 14 August 2012 08:42, Jan Kiszka wrote:
>> On 2012-08-14 09:40, Peter Maydell wrote:
>>> On 14 August 2012 08:33, Jan Kiszka wrote:
KVM_IRQ_LINE is old-style, deprecated, KVM_IRQ_LINE_STATUS (i.e
injection with feedback to allow lost-tick c
On 08/14/2012 10:33 AM, Jan Kiszka 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.
KVM_IRQ_LINE_STATUS may not make sense on all architectures.
I don't
On 2012-08-14 13:01, Avi Kivity wrote:
> On 08/14/2012 10:33 AM, Jan Kiszka 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.
>
> KVM_IRQ_LINE_STATUS m
On 14 August 2012 09:09, Jan Kiszka wrote:
> On 2012-08-14 09:52, Peter Maydell wrote:
>> 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
On 08/14/2012 02:05 PM, Jan Kiszka wrote:
> On 2012-08-14 13:01, Avi Kivity wrote:
>> On 08/14/2012 10:33 AM, Jan Kiszka 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
On 2012-08-14 15:10, Peter Maydell wrote:
> On 14 August 2012 09:09, Jan Kiszka wrote:
>> On 2012-08-14 09:52, Peter Maydell wrote:
>>> 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
On 2012-08-14 15:14, Avi Kivity wrote:
> On 08/14/2012 02:05 PM, Jan Kiszka wrote:
>> On 2012-08-14 13:01, Avi Kivity wrote:
>>> On 08/14/2012 10:33 AM, Jan Kiszka wrote:
KVM_IRQ_LINE is old-style, deprecated, KVM_IRQ_LINE_STATUS (i.e
injection with feedback to allow lost-tick compen
16 matches
Mail list logo
