On 08/14/2012 02:05 PM, Jan Kiszka wrote: > On 2012-08-14 13:01, Avi Kivity wrote: >> On 08/14/2012 10:33 AM, Jan Kiszka wrote: >>> >>> KVM_IRQ_LINE is old-style, deprecated, KVM_IRQ_LINE_STATUS (i.e >>> injection with feedback to allow lost-tick compensation) is the current >>> standard that other archs should pick up. >> >> KVM_IRQ_LINE_STATUS may not make sense on all architectures. >> >> I don't think we're really deprecating KVM_IRQ_LINE or discouraging its >> use. It's not like the kernel-allocated memory slot ioctls. > > I do not think it makes sense to provide both interfaces long term > (provided we ever do a cut). Also, it's almost trivial to provide the > add-on feature of KVM_IRQ_LINE_STATUS, and it keeps the door open for > IRQ decoalescing. If there is no way for an arch to detect coalescing, > it can still return >0 unconditionally.
That's lying. I don't see how anything bad can come out of it, but we can always be surprised. If we can't support something, let's not claim we do. -- error compiling committee.c: too many arguments to function
