Subject: [PATCH 1/7] KVM: api: add kvm_irq_routing_extended_msi

From: [email-masked] (Paolo Bonzini)
Date: Mon, 6 Jul 2015 13:07:16 +0200

On 06/07/2015 12:37, Christoffer Dall wrote:
> I don't view it as 'the kernel requires this' but as 'the kernel will
> not complain with arbitrary error code if you set the devid flag'
> capability, and it's up to userspace (as usual) to provide the correct
> arguments for things to work, and up to the kernel to ensure we don't
> crash the system etc.
> 
> Thus, if you want to advertise it as a capability, I would rather call
> it KVM_CAP_MSI_DEVID.

I agree.  Does userspace know that ITS guests always require devid?  I
guess it's okay to return -EINVAL if the userspace doesn't set the flag
but the virtual hardware requires it.

Paolo

> The question is if userspace code that sets the devid flag will anyway
> depend on some discovery mechanism of whether or not the kernel supports
> arm64 irqfd etc. and if so, can we be sure to add the required support
> at once in the kernel so that EINVAL never means 'you set the flags
> field on the ioctl on an old kernel'?
> 
> This smells an awful lot like a capability to me.