Re: [PATCH v2 0/6] kvm: level triggered irqfd support

[Alex Williamson]

On Wed, 2012-06-27 at 12:58 +0300, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 26, 2012 at 11:08:52PM -0600, Alex Williamson wrote:
> > Ok, let's see how this flies.  I actually quite like this, so be
> > gentle tearing it apart ;)
> > 
> > I just couldn't bring myself to contort KVM_IRQFD into something
> > that either sets up an irqfd or specifies a nearly unrelated EOI
> > eventfd.  The solution I've come up with, that also avoids exposing
> > irq_source_ids to userspace, is to work through the irqfd.  If we
> > setup a level irqfd, we can optionally associate an eoifd with
> > the same irq_source_id, by passing the irqfd.  To do this, we just
> > need to create a new reference counted object for the source ID
> > so we don't run into problems ordering release.  This means we
> > end up with a KVM_EOIFD ioctl that has both general usefulness and
> > can still tie into an irqfd.
> 
> I like this API.

Yay!  I'll work on the bugs you've spotted.

> > In patch 6/6 I also include an alternate de-assert mechanism via an
> > irqfd with the opposite polarity.  I don't currently use this, but
> > it's pretty trivial and at least available in archives now.
> 
> The nasty bit about that is that if you assert twice then
> deassert once it's not clear what should happen.
> But yea, it does not hurt to put them in the archives.

It's no different that KVM_IRQ_LINE in that sense.  It's not an
accumulator, it's a set state.  Thanks,

Alex

--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/