From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Jan Kiszka Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] KVM: Introduce direct MSI message injection for in-kernel irqchips Date: Thu, 29 Mar 2012 17:43:51 +0200 Message-ID: <4F748337.7050706@siemens.com> References: <4F734EB3.20500@siemens.com> <20120329153952.GA14728@redhat.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: Avi Kivity , Marcelo Tosatti , kvm To: "Michael S. Tsirkin" Return-path: Received: from goliath.siemens.de ([192.35.17.28]:21931 "EHLO goliath.siemens.de" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1758942Ab2C2Pn5 (ORCPT ); Thu, 29 Mar 2012 11:43:57 -0400 In-Reply-To: <20120329153952.GA14728@redhat.com> Sender: kvm-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On 2012-03-29 17:39, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote: > On Wed, Mar 28, 2012 at 07:47:31PM +0200, Jan Kiszka wrote: >> Currently, MSI messages can only be injected to in-kernel irqchips by >> defining a corresponding IRQ route for each message. This is not only >> unhandy if the MSI messages are generated "on the fly" by user space, >> IRQ routes are a limited resource that user space as to manage >> carefully. >> >> By providing a direct injection with, we can both avoid using up limited >> resources and simplify the necessary steps for user land. >> >> Signed-off-by: Jan Kiszka > > Looks straight-forward to me. Others noted some > documentation nits, so I know you are going > to repost, anyway. When you do how about renaming > SET_MSI -> SEND_MSI or SIGNAL_MSI ? > We don't set anything, as such ... > > I know we have kvm_set_msi internally but this is > more or less a misnomer. KVM_SET_MSI dates back to the idea to revoke an unfinished injection. But I can also call it SIGNAL_MSI. Update will follow. Jan -- Siemens AG, Corporate Technology, CT T DE IT 1 Corporate Competence Center Embedded Linux