[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <51A33418.40909@redhat.com>
Date: Mon, 27 May 2013 12:23:20 +0200
From: Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@...hat.com>
To: David Gibson <david@...son.dropbear.id.au>
CC: Scott Wood <scottwood@...escale.com>,
Alexey Kardashevskiy <aik@...abs.ru>, kvm@...r.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, kvm-ppc@...r.kernel.org,
Alexander Graf <agraf@...e.de>,
Paul Mackerras <paulus@...ba.org>,
linuxppc-dev@...ts.ozlabs.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/4] KVM: PPC: Add support for IOMMU in-kernel handling
Il 25/05/2013 04:45, David Gibson ha scritto:
>> >+ case KVM_CREATE_SPAPR_TCE_IOMMU: {
>> >+ struct kvm_create_spapr_tce_iommu create_tce_iommu;
>> >+ struct kvm *kvm = filp->private_data;
>> >+
>> >+ r = -EFAULT;
>> >+ if (copy_from_user(&create_tce_iommu, argp,
>> >+ sizeof(create_tce_iommu)))
>> >+ goto out;
>> >+ r = kvm_vm_ioctl_create_spapr_tce_iommu(kvm,
>> >&create_tce_iommu);
>> >+ goto out;
>> >+ }
Would it make sense to make this the only interface for creating TCEs?
That is, pass both a window_size and an IOMMU group id (or e.g. -1 for
no hardware IOMMU usage), and have a single ioctl for both cases?
There's some duplicated code between kvm_vm_ioctl_create_spapr_tce and
kvm_vm_ioctl_create_spapr_tce_iommu.
KVM_CREATE_SPAPR_TCE could stay for backwards-compatibility, or you
could just use a new capability and drop the old ioctl. I'm not sure
whether you're already considering the ABI to be stable for kvmppc.
Paolo
--
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