linux-kernel - Re: [Pv-drivers] [PATCH 00/12] VMCI for Linux upstreaming

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <20121030154801.GC14167@kroah.com>
Date:	Tue, 30 Oct 2012 08:48:01 -0700
From:	Greg KH <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>
To:	Dmitry Torokhov <dtor@...are.com>
Cc:	George Zhang <georgezhang@...are.com>, pv-drivers@...are.com,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	virtualization@...ts.linux-foundation.org
Subject: Re: [Pv-drivers] [PATCH 00/12] VMCI for Linux upstreaming

On Mon, Oct 29, 2012 at 09:07:44PM -0700, Dmitry Torokhov wrote:
> Hi Greg,
> 
> On Mon, Oct 29, 2012 at 07:19:38PM -0700, Greg KH wrote:
> > On Mon, Oct 29, 2012 at 06:03:28PM -0700, George Zhang wrote:
> > >  drivers/misc/Kconfig                      |    1
> > >  drivers/misc/Makefile                     |    2
> > >  drivers/misc/vmw_vmci/Kconfig             |   16
> > >  drivers/misc/vmw_vmci/Makefile            |   43
> > 
> > Meta comment here, why drivers/misc/?  The other hypervisor
> > infrastructures all have their own directory under drivers/  Should we
> > be moving everything to drivers/hyperv/ somehow?
> 
> drivers/hyperv is not the best name for obvious reasons...

Sorry, yes :)

> I think that even if we had a special directory for vmci having network
> drivers in Dave's realm and pvscsi in James's is best option, so the new
> directory would contain vmci and the balloon driver (vsock will go into
> net/).  Given that balloon is already in drivers/misc it looked like
> obvious place for VMCI as well.

I agree that the individual drivers should go in the subsystem area,
it's this "hypervisor bus core" type code that I'm questioning.  Right
now every hypervisor is putting that logic in a different place in the
kernel, having some consistency here would be nice.

thanks,

greg k-h
--
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/