[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <51C2C1CC.9000003@ozlabs.ru>
Date: Thu, 20 Jun 2013 18:48:12 +1000
From: Alexey Kardashevskiy <aik@...abs.ru>
To: Benjamin Herrenschmidt <benh@...nel.crashing.org>
CC: David Gibson <david@...son.dropbear.id.au>,
Alex Williamson <alex.williamson@...hat.com>,
Alexander Graf <agraf@...e.de>, linuxppc-dev@...ts.ozlabs.org,
Paul Mackerras <paulus@...ba.org>,
"kvm@...r.kernel.org mailing list" <kvm@...r.kernel.org>,
open list <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
kvm-ppc@...r.kernel.org, Rusty Russell <rusty@...tcorp.com.au>,
Joerg Roedel <joro@...tes.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/4] KVM: PPC: Add support for IOMMU in-kernel handling
On 06/20/2013 05:47 PM, Benjamin Herrenschmidt wrote:
> On Thu, 2013-06-20 at 15:28 +1000, David Gibson wrote:
>>> Just out of curiosity - would not get_file() and fput_atomic() on a
>> group's
>>> file* do the right job instead of vfio_group_add_external_user() and
>>> vfio_group_del_external_user()?
>>
>> I was thinking that too. Grabbing a file reference would certainly be
>> the usual way of handling this sort of thing.
>
> But that wouldn't prevent the group ownership to be returned to
> the kernel or another user would it ?
Holding the file pointer does not let the group->container_users counter go
to zero and this is exactly what vfio_group_add_external_user() and
vfio_group_del_external_user() do. The difference is only in absolute value
- 2 vs. 3.
No change in behaviour whether I use new vfio API or simply hold file* till
KVM closes fd created when IOMMU was connected to LIOBN.
And while this counter is not zero, QEMU cannot take ownership over the group.
I am definitely still missing the bigger picture...
--
Alexey
--
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