[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20150709153458.GX18569@8bytes.org>
Date: Thu, 9 Jul 2015 17:34:58 +0200
From: Joerg Roedel <joro@...tes.org>
To: Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@...hat.com>
Cc: Alex Williamson <alex.williamson@...hat.com>,
Eric Auger <eric.auger@...aro.org>, eric.auger@...com,
linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org, kvmarm@...ts.cs.columbia.edu,
kvm@...r.kernel.org, christoffer.dall@...aro.org,
marc.zyngier@....com, avi.kivity@...il.com, mtosatti@...hat.com,
feng.wu@...el.com, b.reynal@...tualopensystems.com,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, patches@...aro.org
Subject: Re: [RFC v2 0/6] IRQ bypass manager and irqfd consumer
On Thu, Jul 09, 2015 at 04:38:41PM +0200, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
> >> On Tue, Jul 07, 2015 at 11:17:48AM -0600, Alex Williamson wrote:
> > If we think that it's *only* a kvm-vfio interaction then we could add it
> > to virt/kvm/vfio.c. vfio could use symbol_get to avoid a module
> > dependency and effectively disable the code path when not used with kvm.
> > The reverse model of hosting it in vfio and using symbol_get from
> > kvm-vfio would also work. Do we really want to declare it to be
> > kvm-vfio specific though? Another option would be to simply host it
> > under virt/lib with module dependencies for both vfio and kvm.
>
> I wonder if in the future we may have some kind of driver-mediated
> passthrough, e.g. for network drivers. They might use the bypass
> mechanism too. So I think drivers/vfio is too restrictive.
>
> virt/ right now only hosts KVM, but it could for example host lguest
> too. virt/lib/ is okay with me.
Yeah, virt/lib is probably the best choice.
Joerg
--
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