On 2012-07-25 18:09, Peter Maydell wrote: > On 25 July 2012 16:58, Jan Kiszka <jan.kis...@siemens.com> wrote: >> On 2012-07-25 17:56, Peter Maydell wrote: >>> On 25 July 2012 16:55, Avi Kivity <a...@redhat.com> wrote: >>>> On 07/25/2012 06:53 PM, Jan Kiszka wrote: >>>>> We don't have a synchronous function anymore, it's part of the pre-run >>>>> code of x86 IIRC. >>>> >>>> Right. There's a DPRINTF() there that talks about injection, too. So I >>>> think this patch can be dropped. >>> >>> The main purpose of the patch is to remove 'irqchip' from the >>> function name, because the function isn't restricted to use >>> with in-kernel irqchips. >> >> Hmm, what was question again? Ah: Do we have an arch that implements it >> without providing a (logical) irqchip? At least at this time (including >> ARM)? > > Well, it depends what you mean by 'irqchip' (part of the point of > this series being that there isn't a coherent architecture > independent definition of that and so we shouldn't use the term > in architecture-independent code). > On ARM we will use KVM_IRQ_LINE whether we have an in-kernel VGIC > or not, because we always use async interrupt injection. > > (That is, the same arguments for "why should this function be > guarded by kvm_async_interrupt_injection() rather than > kvm_irqchip_in_kernel()?" apply to "why should this function not > have 'irqchip' in the function name.)
Wasn't Avi's point that you do have an irqchip in your KVM support? Jan -- Siemens AG, Corporate Technology, CT RTC ITP SDP-DE Corporate Competence Center Embedded Linux
