[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <1377653191.3819.146.camel@pasglop>
Date: Wed, 28 Aug 2013 11:26:31 +1000
From: Benjamin Herrenschmidt <benh@...nel.crashing.org>
To: Alexey Kardashevskiy <aik@...abs.ru>
Cc: Gleb Natapov <gleb@...hat.com>, linuxppc-dev@...ts.ozlabs.org,
David Gibson <david@...son.dropbear.id.au>,
Paul Mackerras <paulus@...ba.org>, kvm@...r.kernel.org,
Alexander Graf <agraf@...e.de>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v8] KVM: PPC: reserve a capability and ioctl numbers for
realmode VFIO
On Wed, 2013-08-28 at 10:51 +1000, Alexey Kardashevskiy wrote:
> The ioctl I made up is basically a copy of KVM_CREATE_SPAPR_TCE which does
> the same thing for emulated devices and it is there for quite a while but
> it is not really extensible. And these two ioctls share some bits of code.
> Now we will have 2 pieces of code which do almost the same thing but in a
> different way. Kinda sucks :(
Right. Thus the question, Gleb, we can either:
- Keep Alexey patch as-is allowing us to *finally* merge that stuff
that's been around for monthes
- Convert *both* existing TCE objects to the new
KVM_CREATE_DEVICE, and have some backward compat code for the old one.
I don't think it makes sense to have the "emulated TCE" and "IOMMU TCE"
objects use a fundamentally different API and infrastructure.
> >> So my stuff is not going to upstream again. Heh. Ok. I'll implement it.
> >>
> > Thanks! Should I keep KVM_CAP_SPAPR_MULTITCE capability patch or can I
> > drop it for now?
>
> Please keep it, it is unrelated to the IOMMU-VFIO thing.
--
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