From: Eric Auger <eric.auger@linaro.org> To: Pavel Fedin <p.fedin@samsung.com>, 'Andre Przywara' <andre.przywara@arm.com>, linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org Cc: eric.auger@st.com, kvm@vger.kernel.org, 'Marc Zyngier' <Marc.Zyngier@arm.com>, pbonzini@redhat.com, kvmarm@lists.cs.columbia.edu Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 0/7] KVM: arm/arm64: gsi routing support Date: Thu, 09 Jul 2015 19:11:25 +0200 [thread overview] Message-ID: <559EAB3D.2080205@linaro.org> (raw) In-Reply-To: <026801d0ba5f$43a79520$caf6bf60$@samsung.com> Hi Pavel, Andre, On 07/09/2015 05:52 PM, Pavel Fedin wrote: > Hi! > >>> 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. > > We already have 'flags' there too. > >> Both ioctl extensions are coupled with a per-VM capability to let >> userland know that it needs to provide a device ID. > >> Using flags on its own (without an explicit capability) is what I >> opposed against, not flags in general. > > Ok, and in your next respin you'll add the capability, correct? So that we will finally have all > pieces in place. > >> 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. > > Well, MSI vs "Extended MSI" are even not different types really. It's just MSI which has devid. And > we *ALREADY* have VALID_DEVID flag. > >> 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. > > So, ok, to be short... My vote is for flag, because it's already there and it keeps up with the > style we already have. Eric, this is my final statement about it. It's up to you to accept or > ignore. In qemu code flag is a little bit nicer because it's just stored in a variable and helps to > avoid several if-else's (however small ones). Compare: Well personally I prefer the type thing and I don't see much difference at userspace level anyway. But I am not this kind of hyperspace architect guy. So, since there is no consensus here, I would say let's wait for formal reviews of our maintainers and I will align. The v2 update is not the outcome of a consensus so I made arbitrary decisions to progress & fix bugs and I hope this eventually works with ITS ;-) Best Regards Eric > --- cut --- > kroute.gsi = virq; > kroute.type = KVM_IRQ_ROUTING_MSI; > kroute.u.msi.address_lo = (uint32_t)msg.address; > kroute.u.msi.address_hi = msg.address >> 32; > kroute.u.msi.data = le32_to_cpu(msg.data); > kroute.flags = kvm_msi_flags; > if (kroute.flags & KVM_MSI_VALID_DEVID) { > kroute.u.msi.devid = (pci_bus_num(dev->bus) << 8) | dev->devfn; > } > --- cut --- > and: > --- cut --- > kroute.gsi = virq; > if (use_extended_msi) { > kroute.u.msi.devid = (pci_bus_num(dev->bus) << 8) | dev->devfn; > kroute.type = KVM_IRQ_ROUTING_EXTENDED_MSI; > } else { > kroute.type = KVM_IRQ_ROUTING_MSI; > } > kroute.u.msi.address_lo = (uint32_t)msg.address; > kroute.u.msi.address_hi = msg.address >> 32; > kroute.u.msi.data = le32_to_cpu(msg.data); > kroute.flags = kvm_msi_flags; > --- cut --- > > Kind regards, > Pavel Fedin > Expert Engineer > Samsung Electronics Research center Russia > >
WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: eric.auger@linaro.org (Eric Auger) To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org Subject: [PATCH v2 0/7] KVM: arm/arm64: gsi routing support Date: Thu, 09 Jul 2015 19:11:25 +0200 [thread overview] Message-ID: <559EAB3D.2080205@linaro.org> (raw) In-Reply-To: <026801d0ba5f$43a79520$caf6bf60$@samsung.com> Hi Pavel, Andre, On 07/09/2015 05:52 PM, Pavel Fedin wrote: > Hi! > >>> 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. > > We already have 'flags' there too. > >> Both ioctl extensions are coupled with a per-VM capability to let >> userland know that it needs to provide a device ID. > >> Using flags on its own (without an explicit capability) is what I >> opposed against, not flags in general. > > Ok, and in your next respin you'll add the capability, correct? So that we will finally have all > pieces in place. > >> 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. > > Well, MSI vs "Extended MSI" are even not different types really. It's just MSI which has devid. And > we *ALREADY* have VALID_DEVID flag. > >> 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. > > So, ok, to be short... My vote is for flag, because it's already there and it keeps up with the > style we already have. Eric, this is my final statement about it. It's up to you to accept or > ignore. In qemu code flag is a little bit nicer because it's just stored in a variable and helps to > avoid several if-else's (however small ones). Compare: Well personally I prefer the type thing and I don't see much difference at userspace level anyway. But I am not this kind of hyperspace architect guy. So, since there is no consensus here, I would say let's wait for formal reviews of our maintainers and I will align. The v2 update is not the outcome of a consensus so I made arbitrary decisions to progress & fix bugs and I hope this eventually works with ITS ;-) Best Regards Eric > --- cut --- > kroute.gsi = virq; > kroute.type = KVM_IRQ_ROUTING_MSI; > kroute.u.msi.address_lo = (uint32_t)msg.address; > kroute.u.msi.address_hi = msg.address >> 32; > kroute.u.msi.data = le32_to_cpu(msg.data); > kroute.flags = kvm_msi_flags; > if (kroute.flags & KVM_MSI_VALID_DEVID) { > kroute.u.msi.devid = (pci_bus_num(dev->bus) << 8) | dev->devfn; > } > --- cut --- > and: > --- cut --- > kroute.gsi = virq; > if (use_extended_msi) { > kroute.u.msi.devid = (pci_bus_num(dev->bus) << 8) | dev->devfn; > kroute.type = KVM_IRQ_ROUTING_EXTENDED_MSI; > } else { > kroute.type = KVM_IRQ_ROUTING_MSI; > } > kroute.u.msi.address_lo = (uint32_t)msg.address; > kroute.u.msi.address_hi = msg.address >> 32; > kroute.u.msi.data = le32_to_cpu(msg.data); > kroute.flags = kvm_msi_flags; > --- cut --- > > Kind regards, > Pavel Fedin > Expert Engineer > Samsung Electronics Research center Russia > >
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2015-07-09 17:11 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 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 [this message] 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=559EAB3D.2080205@linaro.org \ --to=eric.auger@linaro.org \ --cc=Marc.Zyngier@arm.com \ --cc=andre.przywara@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: linkBe 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.