Re: [PATCH 0/1] uio_pci_generic: extensions to allow access for non-privilegedprocesses

[Avi Kivity]

On 04/01/2010 10:24 PM, Tom Lyon wrote:
> > But there are multiple msi-x interrupts, how do you know which one
> > triggered?
> >      
> You don't. This would suck for KVM, I guess, but we'd need major rework of the
> generic UIO stuff to have a separate event channel for each MSI-X.
>    

Doesn't it suck for non-kvm in the same way?  Multiple vectors are there 
for a reason.  For example, if you have a multiqueue NIC, you'd have to 
process all queues instead of just the one that triggered.

> For my purposes, collapsing all the MSI-Xs into one MSI-look-alike is fine,
> because I'd be using MSI anyways if I could. The weird Intel 82599 VF only
> supports MSI-X.
>
> So one big question is - do we expand the whole UIO framework for KVM
> requirements, or do we split off either KVM or non-VM into a separate driver?
> Hans or Greg - care to opine?
>    

Currently kvm does device assignment with its own code, I'd like to 
unify it with uio, not split it off.

Separate notifications for msi-x interrupts are just as useful for uio 
as they are for kvm.

--
Do not meddle in the internals of kernels, for they are subtle and quick to panic.

--
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/