[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH 4/6] kvm: Don't assume irqchip-in-kernel implies

From: Jan Kiszka
Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH 4/6] kvm: Don't assume irqchip-in-kernel implies irqfds
Date: Wed, 25 Jul 2012 17:54:10 +0200
User-agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686 (x86_64); de; rv: Gecko/20080226 SUSE/ Thunderbird/ Mnenhy/

On 2012-07-25 17:52, Peter Maydell wrote:
> On 25 July 2012 16:47, Jan Kiszka <address@hidden> wrote:
>> On 2012-07-25 15:24, Peter Maydell wrote:
>>> --- a/kvm-all.c
>>> +++ b/kvm-all.c
>>> @@ -101,6 +101,7 @@ struct KVMState
>>>  KVMState *kvm_state;
>>>  bool kvm_kernel_irqchip;
>>>  bool kvm_async_interrupt_injection;
>>> +bool kvm_irqfds_allowed;
>> Why allowed vs enabled? You only have kvm_async_interrupt_injection as well.
> I was trying to follow the existing pattern where the macro kvm_enabled()
> tests the variable kvm_allowed (though as you noticed I got it wrong for
> kvm_async_interrupt_injection: will fix that in v2.)
> Having the two the same is valid C, it's just a style question whether
> having a variable foo and a macro foo() is considered confusing I guess.

I don't mind which way if they are consistent.


Siemens AG, Corporate Technology, CT RTC ITP SDP-DE
Corporate Competence Center Embedded Linux

reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]