[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <200610300101.11245.arnd@arndb.de>
Date: Mon, 30 Oct 2006 01:01:10 +0100
From: Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>
To: kvm-devel@...ts.sourceforge.net
Cc: Avi Kivity <avi@...ranet.com>,
linux-kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [kvm-devel] [PATCH][RFC] KVM: prepare user interface for smp guests
On Sunday 29 October 2006 14:31, Avi Kivity wrote:
> + r = -EEXIST;
> + if (vcpu->vmcs)
> + goto out_unlock;
> +
> + r = -ENOMEM;
> + filp = get_empty_filp();
> + if (!filp)
> + goto out_unlock;
> +
> + r = get_unused_fd();
> + if (r < 0)
> + goto out_free_filp;
> +
> + fd = r;
>
> vcpu->host_fx_image = (char*)ALIGN((hva_t)vcpu->fx_buf,
> FX_IMAGE_ALIGN);
> @@ -1372,10 +1428,25 @@ static int kvm_dev_ioctl_create_vcpu(str
> if (r < 0)
> goto out_free_vcpus;
>
> - return 0;
> + filp->f_dentry = dget(kvm_filp->f_dentry);
> + filp->f_vfsmnt = mntget(kvm_filp->f_vfsmnt);
> + filp->f_mode = kvm_filp->f_mode;
> + allow_write_access(filp);
> + cdev_get(filp->f_dentry->d_inode->i_cdev);
> + kvm_get(kvm);
> + filp->f_op = fops_get(&kvm_vcpu_ops);
> + filp->private_data = vcpu;
> + fd_install(fd, filp);
Separating the objects into different file descriptors sounds like a
good idea, but reusing an open dentry/inode with a new file and different
file operations is a rather unusual way to do it. Your concept of allocating
a new context on each open is already weird, but there have been other
examples of that before.
I'd suggest going to a syscall-based model with your own file system right
away, even if you don't use the spufs approach but something in the middle:
* You do a trivial nonmountable new file system with anonymous objects,
similar to eventpollfs, and hand out file descriptors to inodes in it,
for both the kvm and the vcpu objects.
* You replace the syscall you'd normally use to hand out a new kvm instance
with an ioctl on /dev/kvm, and don't allow any other operations on that
device.
This would be a much more consistant object model, compared with other
generic kernel functionality that is not bound to an actual device.
You still have all the flexibility of a loadable module without core
kernel changes for the development phase, and can easily switch to real
syscalls when merging it into mainline.
I really think that a small number of syscalls is where you should be
heading, whether you use a file system or not, but I understand that
ioctls are convenient for development.
Arnd <><
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists