Date: Thu, 1 Apr 2010 22:21:00 +0200
From: Joerg Roedel <joro@8bytes.org>
To: Tom Lyon <pugs@lyon-about.com>
Cc: Avi Kivity <avi@redhat.com>, kvm@vger.kernel.org,
       linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, "Hans J. Koch" <hjk@linutronix.de>,
       gregkh@suse.de
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/1] uio_pci_generic: extensions to allow access for
	non-privileged processes
Message-ID: <20100401202100.GL24846@8bytes.org>
References: <201003311708.38961.pugs@lyon-about.com> <201004010906.47321.pugs@lyon-about.com> <4BB4C591.8000102@redhat.com> <201004011224.45336.pugs@lyon-about.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <201004011224.45336.pugs@lyon-about.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.18 (2008-05-17)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Content-Length: 1052
Lines: 26

On Thu, Apr 01, 2010 at 12:24:45PM -0700, Tom Lyon wrote:

> 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.

For KVM this is not fine. The device should look in the guest as it
looks in the host. Some devices might only support MSI-X and thus the
drivers for it only search for MSI-X and get confused when they only
find MSI.

> 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?

We should definitly work towards a single implementation. The KVM device
passthrough requirements are not very different from that of userspace
device access.

	Joerg

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