On Wed, Jul 10, 2013 at 12:45:59PM +0200, Alexander Graf wrote:
>
> On 10.07.2013, at 12:42, Gleb Natapov wrote:
>
> > 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?
>
> What's the advantage of having an option at all then? Who selects it?
>
x86 is stupid and cannot deliver the even asynchronously. Platform that
can do it select the option.
--
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/
