On Wed, Jul 10, 2013 at 12:39:01PM +0200, Alexander Graf wrote:
>
> On 09.07.2013, at 18:01, Christian Borntraeger wrote:
>
> > On 09/07/13 15:56, Dominik Dingel wrote:
> >> By setting a Kconfig option, the architecture can control when
> >> guest notifications will be presented by the apf backend.
> >> So there is the default batch mechanism, working as before, where the vcpu
> >> thread
> >> should pull in this information. On the other hand there is now the direct
> >> mechanism, this will directly push the information to the guest.
> >>
> >> Still the vcpu thread should call check_completion to cleanup leftovers,
> >> that leaves most of the common code untouched.
> >>
> >> Signed-off-by: Dominik Dingel <din...@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
> >
> > Acked-by: Christian Borntraeger <borntrae...@de.ibm.com>
> > for the "why". We want to use the existing architectured interface.
>
> Shouldn't this be a runtime option?
>
Why? What is the advantage of using sync delivery when HW can do it
async?
--
Gleb.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
