On Fri, 2015-06-26 at 18:31 +0200, Eric Auger wrote:
> On 06/26/2015 06:26 PM, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
> >
> >
> > On 26/06/2015 18:21, Alex Williamson wrote:
> >>>> +#ifdef CONFIG_KVM
> >>>> + if (kvm_irqfds_enabled() && kvm_resamplefds_enabled() &&
> >>>> + vdev->irqfd_allowed) {
> >>>> + sbc->connect_irq_notifier = vfio_start_irqfd_injection;
> >> Should we be abstracting this to a
> >> sysbus_register_connect_irq_notifier()? It seems a littler personal to
> >> be reaching in and setting it ourselves and would avoid us needing to
> >> reference the class.
> >
> > It's your class, so it's not too bad to touch it from that point of
> > view; on the other hand it's ugly to do it here nevertheless. :)
> >
> > I think you should always set "sbc->connect_irq_notifier =
> > vfio_start_irqfd_injection" in the class_init function. The
> > vfio_start_irqfd_injection function can just exit if it finds
> > "!kvm_enabled() || !kvm_irqfds_enabled() || !kvm_resamplefds_enabled()
> > || !vdev->irqfd_allowed".
> OK thanks for the guidance. Alex, are you OK with that solution. It
> avoids touching the other patch
Yeah, I'm ok with that, it's less awkward from the class_init. Thanks,
Alex
