Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1756131Ab2FXPti (ORCPT ); Sun, 24 Jun 2012 11:49:38 -0400 Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([209.132.183.28]:54664 "EHLO mx1.redhat.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751799Ab2FXPth (ORCPT ); Sun, 24 Jun 2012 11:49:37 -0400 Date: Sun, 24 Jun 2012 18:49:38 +0300 From: "Michael S. Tsirkin" To: Alex Williamson Cc: Avi Kivity , kvm@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, jan.kiszka@siemens.com Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/4] kvm: Extend irqfd to support level interrupts Message-ID: <20120624154938.GE2851@redhat.com> References: <20120622220040.9858.43665.stgit@bling.home> <20120622221559.9858.59593.stgit@bling.home> <4FE6EC20.5030502@redhat.com> <1340551118.14120.66.camel@bling.home> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <1340551118.14120.66.camel@bling.home> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1422 Lines: 33 On Sun, Jun 24, 2012 at 09:18:38AM -0600, Alex Williamson wrote: > > > @@ -242,7 +299,8 @@ kvm_irqfd_assign(struct kvm *kvm, struct kvm_irqfd *args) > > > > > > ret = 0; > > > list_for_each_entry(tmp, &kvm->irqfds.items, list) { > > > - if (irqfd->eventfd != tmp->eventfd) > > > + if (irqfd->eventfd != tmp->eventfd && > > > + irqfd->eventfd != tmp->eoi_eventfd) > > > continue; > > > > So we allow duplicate irqfd with differing eoifd (or edge-triggered and > > level-triggered irqfd on the same context). > > > > (why the check in the first place? just so we can have a reliable > > deassign or is it avoiding a deeper problem?) > > I really wasn't sure to what extent we wanted to prevent duplicates. My > guess was that we don't want to have an irqfd trigger more than one > thing. That seems to be what the current code does. I don't see any > problems with multiple irqfds triggering the same eventfd though. I > only added a test that a new irqfd can't be triggered by an existing > eoi_eventfd as that could make a nasty loop. How would that make a loop? You can have the same thing with e.g. ioeventfd - why isn't it a problem there? -- MST -- 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/