Messages in this thread | | | Date | Wed, 29 May 2013 18:14:32 -0500 | From | Scott Wood <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH 3/4] KVM: PPC: Add support for IOMMU in-kernel handling |
| |
On 05/29/2013 06:10:33 PM, Alexey Kardashevskiy wrote: > On 05/30/2013 06:05 AM, Scott Wood wrote: > > On 05/28/2013 07:12:32 PM, Alexey Kardashevskiy wrote: > >> On 05/29/2013 09:35 AM, Scott Wood wrote: > >> > On 05/28/2013 06:30:40 PM, Alexey Kardashevskiy wrote: > >> >> >> >>> @@ -939,6 +940,9 @@ struct kvm_s390_ucas_mapping { > >> >> >> >>> #define KVM_GET_DEVICE_ATTR _IOW(KVMIO, 0xe2, > struct > >> >> >> >>> kvm_device_attr) > >> >> >> >>> #define KVM_HAS_DEVICE_ATTR _IOW(KVMIO, 0xe3, > struct > >> >> >> >>> kvm_device_attr) > >> >> >> >>> > >> >> >> >>> +/* ioctl for SPAPR TCE IOMMU */ > >> >> >> >>> +#define KVM_CREATE_SPAPR_TCE_IOMMU _IOW(KVMIO, 0xe4, > struct > >> >> >> >>> kvm_create_spapr_tce_iommu) > >> >> >> >> > >> >> >> >> Shouldn't this go under the vm ioctl section? > >> >> >> > >> >> >> > >> >> >> The KVM_CREATE_SPAPR_TCE_IOMMU ioctl (the version for > emulated > >> >> devices) is > >> >> >> in this section so I decided to keep them together. Wrong? > >> >> > > >> >> > You decided to keep KVM_CREATE_SPAPR_TCE_IOMMU together with > >> >> > KVM_CREATE_SPAPR_TCE_IOMMU? > >> >> > >> >> Yes. > >> > > >> > Sigh. That's the same thing repeated. There's only one IOCTL. > >> Nothing is > >> > being "kept together". > >> > >> Sorry, I meant this ioctl - KVM_CREATE_SPAPR_TCE. > > > > But you didn't put it in the same section as KVM_CREATE_SPAPR_TCE. > 0xe0 > > begins a different section. > > It is not really obvious that there are sections as no comment defines > those :)
There is a comment /* ioctls for fds returned by KVM_CREATE_DEVICE */
Putting KVM_CREATE_DEVICE in there was mainly to avoid dealing with the ioctl number conflict mess in the vm-ioctl section, but at least that one is related to the device control API. :-)
> But yes, makes sense to move it up a bit and change the code to 0xad.
0xad is KVM_KVMCLOCK_CTRL
-Scott
| |