From: Andre Przywara <andre.przywara@arm.com>
To: Pavel Fedin <p.fedin@samsung.com>,
"linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org"
<linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org>
Cc: "eric.auger@st.com" <eric.auger@st.com>,
"kvm@vger.kernel.org" <kvm@vger.kernel.org>,
Marc Zyngier <Marc.Zyngier@arm.com>,
"pbonzini@redhat.com" <pbonzini@redhat.com>,
"kvmarm@lists.cs.columbia.edu" <kvmarm@lists.cs.columbia.edu>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 0/7] KVM: arm/arm64: gsi routing support
Date: Thu, 9 Jul 2015 16:25:50 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <559E927E.8040403@arm.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <023601d0ba54$c4d6e020$4e84a060$@samsung.com>
Hi Pavel,
On 09/07/15 15:37, Pavel Fedin wrote:
> Hello!
>
>> v1 -> v2:
>> - user API changed:
>> x devid id passed in kvm_irq_routing_msi
>> x kept the new routing entry type: KVM_IRQ_ROUTING_EXTENDED_MSI
>
> Andre, you never replied to my last comment to the previous series.
Oh dear, my draft folder again :-( Sorry for that!
> Are you going to do the same
> change in your MSI API? Otherwise:
> 1. KVM_IRQ_LINE - we have completely own convention. Well, this was already done before us, we
> cannot fix it.
> 2. KVM_SIGNAL_MSI - we use VALID_DEVID flag plus devid
Yes, because there is already a flag value and no other way to specify
this, in contrast to ...
> 3. KVM_SET_GSI_ROUTING - we use KVM_IRQ_ROUTING_EXTENDED_MSI plus devid
Here we already have a type field with some users, so lets piggy-back on
this.
Both ioctl extensions are coupled with a per-VM capability to let
userland know that it needs to provide a device ID.
> Don't (2) and (3) together still look bad? Since we agreed on not using flags, i would suggest to
> have KVM_SIGNAL_EXTENDED_MSI counterpart, which also doesn't use flags.
Using flags on its own (without an explicit capability) is what I
opposed against, not flags in general. After all, that's what they are
meant for, right? In case of KVM_SET_GSI_ROUTING it just seems awkward
to me to use a flag when a different type would do as well.
But after all, I don't have a strong opinion on that matter, so if
others prefer using a flag I am also fine with that.
Poka,
Andre.
> I know, we were already talking about it, so, if this gets ignored for the second time, i assume
> the Architects decided that fancy APIs are cool, and i promise to stop this.
>
> Kind regards,
> Pavel Fedin
> Expert Engineer
> Samsung Electronics Research center Russia
>
WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: andre.przywara@arm.com (Andre Przywara)
To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
Subject: [PATCH v2 0/7] KVM: arm/arm64: gsi routing support
Date: Thu, 9 Jul 2015 16:25:50 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <559E927E.8040403@arm.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <023601d0ba54$c4d6e020$4e84a060$@samsung.com>
Hi Pavel,
On 09/07/15 15:37, Pavel Fedin wrote:
> Hello!
>
>> v1 -> v2:
>> - user API changed:
>> x devid id passed in kvm_irq_routing_msi
>> x kept the new routing entry type: KVM_IRQ_ROUTING_EXTENDED_MSI
>
> Andre, you never replied to my last comment to the previous series.
Oh dear, my draft folder again :-( Sorry for that!
> Are you going to do the same
> change in your MSI API? Otherwise:
> 1. KVM_IRQ_LINE - we have completely own convention. Well, this was already done before us, we
> cannot fix it.
> 2. KVM_SIGNAL_MSI - we use VALID_DEVID flag plus devid
Yes, because there is already a flag value and no other way to specify
this, in contrast to ...
> 3. KVM_SET_GSI_ROUTING - we use KVM_IRQ_ROUTING_EXTENDED_MSI plus devid
Here we already have a type field with some users, so lets piggy-back on
this.
Both ioctl extensions are coupled with a per-VM capability to let
userland know that it needs to provide a device ID.
> Don't (2) and (3) together still look bad? Since we agreed on not using flags, i would suggest to
> have KVM_SIGNAL_EXTENDED_MSI counterpart, which also doesn't use flags.
Using flags on its own (without an explicit capability) is what I
opposed against, not flags in general. After all, that's what they are
meant for, right? In case of KVM_SET_GSI_ROUTING it just seems awkward
to me to use a flag when a different type would do as well.
But after all, I don't have a strong opinion on that matter, so if
others prefer using a flag I am also fine with that.
Poka,
Andre.
> I know, we were already talking about it, so, if this gets ignored for the second time, i assume
> the Architects decided that fancy APIs are cool, and i promise to stop this.
>
> Kind regards,
> Pavel Fedin
> Expert Engineer
> Samsung Electronics Research center Russia
>
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2015-07-09 15:25 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 56+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2015-07-09 8:22 [PATCH v2 0/7] KVM: arm/arm64: gsi routing support Eric Auger
2015-07-09 8:22 ` Eric Auger
2015-07-09 8:22 ` [PATCH v2 1/7] KVM: api: introduce KVM_IRQ_ROUTING_EXTENDED_MSI Eric Auger
2015-07-09 8:22 ` Eric Auger
2015-07-10 22:42 ` Andre Przywara
2015-07-10 22:42 ` Andre Przywara
2015-07-13 9:25 ` Eric Auger
2015-07-13 9:25 ` Eric Auger
2015-07-09 8:22 ` [PATCH v2 2/7] KVM: kvm_host: add devid in kvm_kernel_irq_routing_entry Eric Auger
2015-07-09 8:22 ` Eric Auger
2015-07-09 8:22 ` [PATCH v2 3/7] KVM: irqchip: convey devid to kvm_set_msi Eric Auger
2015-07-09 8:22 ` Eric Auger
2015-07-10 23:15 ` Andre Przywara
2015-07-10 23:15 ` Andre Przywara
2015-07-17 7:27 ` Pavel Fedin
2015-07-17 7:27 ` Pavel Fedin
2015-07-17 10:09 ` Paolo Bonzini
2015-07-17 10:09 ` Paolo Bonzini
2015-07-17 10:21 ` Pavel Fedin
2015-07-17 10:21 ` Pavel Fedin
2015-07-18 18:39 ` Eric Auger
2015-07-18 18:39 ` Eric Auger
2015-07-09 8:22 ` [PATCH v2 4/7] KVM: arm/arm64: enable irqchip routing Eric Auger
2015-07-09 8:22 ` Eric Auger
2015-07-10 23:15 ` Andre Przywara
2015-07-10 23:15 ` Andre Przywara
2015-07-13 9:58 ` Eric Auger
2015-07-13 9:58 ` Eric Auger
2015-07-15 7:29 ` Pavel Fedin
2015-07-15 7:29 ` Pavel Fedin
2015-07-09 8:22 ` [PATCH v2 5/7] KVM: arm/arm64: build a default routing table Eric Auger
2015-07-09 8:22 ` Eric Auger
2015-07-09 8:22 ` [PATCH v2 6/7] KVM: arm/arm64: enable MSI routing Eric Auger
2015-07-09 8:22 ` Eric Auger
2015-07-10 23:16 ` Andre Przywara
2015-07-10 23:16 ` Andre Przywara
2015-07-09 8:22 ` [PATCH v2 7/7] KVM: arm: implement kvm_set_msi by gsi direct mapping Eric Auger
2015-07-09 8:22 ` Eric Auger
2015-07-10 23:17 ` Andre Przywara
2015-07-10 23:17 ` Andre Przywara
2015-07-31 12:59 ` Eric Auger
2015-07-31 12:59 ` Eric Auger
2015-08-02 20:23 ` Andre Przywara
2015-08-02 20:23 ` Andre Przywara
2015-08-03 9:11 ` Eric Auger
2015-08-03 9:11 ` Eric Auger
2015-07-09 14:37 ` [PATCH v2 0/7] KVM: arm/arm64: gsi routing support Pavel Fedin
2015-07-09 14:37 ` Pavel Fedin
2015-07-09 15:25 ` Andre Przywara [this message]
2015-07-09 15:25 ` Andre Przywara
2015-07-09 15:52 ` Pavel Fedin
2015-07-09 15:52 ` Pavel Fedin
2015-07-09 17:11 ` Eric Auger
2015-07-09 17:11 ` Eric Auger
2015-07-09 18:08 ` Pavel Fedin
2015-07-09 18:08 ` Pavel Fedin
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=559E927E.8040403@arm.com \
--to=andre.przywara@arm.com \
--cc=Marc.Zyngier@arm.com \
--cc=eric.auger@st.com \
--cc=kvm@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=kvmarm@lists.cs.columbia.edu \
--cc=linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org \
--cc=p.fedin@samsung.com \
--cc=pbonzini@redhat.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.