From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1753067AbbF2NBp (ORCPT ); Mon, 29 Jun 2015 09:01:45 -0400 Received: from mga09.intel.com ([134.134.136.24]:28180 "EHLO mga09.intel.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752629AbbF2NBf convert rfc822-to-8bit (ORCPT ); Mon, 29 Jun 2015 09:01:35 -0400 X-ExtLoop1: 1 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.13,698,1427785200"; d="scan'208";a="596695844" From: "Wu, Feng" To: Joerg Roedel CC: Alex Williamson , Eric Auger , Avi Kivity , "kvm@vger.kernel.org" , "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" , "pbonzini@redhat.com" , "mtosatti@redhat.com" , "Wu, Feng" Subject: RE: [v4 08/16] KVM: kvm-vfio: User API for IRQ forwarding Thread-Topic: [v4 08/16] KVM: kvm-vfio: User API for IRQ forwarding Thread-Index: AQHQsk0uq15yz7jkykqKlII6wYK9SJ3DcWJQ Date: Mon, 29 Jun 2015 13:01:27 +0000 Message-ID: References: <1434135815.4927.308.camel@redhat.com> <557EFA7F.9010209@linaro.org> <1434386702.4927.391.camel@redhat.com> <1434657848.3700.83.camel@redhat.com> <20150624154616.GB18569@8bytes.org> <1435245112.3700.365.camel@redhat.com> <20150629090629.GH18569@8bytes.org> <20150629092241.GI18569@8bytes.org> In-Reply-To: <20150629092241.GI18569@8bytes.org> Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: x-originating-ip: [10.239.127.40] Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8BIT MIME-Version: 1.0 Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org > -----Original Message----- > From: Joerg Roedel [mailto:joro@8bytes.org] > Sent: Monday, June 29, 2015 5:23 PM > To: Wu, Feng > Cc: Alex Williamson; Eric Auger; Avi Kivity; kvm@vger.kernel.org; > linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org; pbonzini@redhat.com; mtosatti@redhat.com > Subject: Re: [v4 08/16] KVM: kvm-vfio: User API for IRQ forwarding > > On Mon, Jun 29, 2015 at 09:14:54AM +0000, Wu, Feng wrote: > > Do you mean updating the hardware IRTEs for all the entries in the irq > > routing table, no matter whether it is the updated one? > > Right, that's what I mean. It seems wrong to me to work around the API > interface by creating a diff between the old and the new routing table. Yes the original usage model here doesn't care about the diff between the old and new, it is a little intrusive to add the comparison code here. > It is much simpler (and easier to maintain) to just update the IRTE > and PI structures for all IRQs in the routing table, especially since > this is not a hot-path. Agree. Thanks, Feng > > > Joerg