On 5/25/22 17:47, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
On 5/25/22 04:58, Alexey Kardashevskiy wrote:
After reading
https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/torvalds/linux.git/commit/?id=2bde9b3ec8bdf60788e9e and neighboring commits, it sounds that each create() should be paired with either destroy() or release() but not necessarily both.
I agree, if release() is implemented then destroy() will never be called
(except in error situations).
kvm_destroy_devices() should not be touched, except to add a WARN_ON
perhaps.
I'll leave it as is.
So I'm really not sure dummy handlers is a good idea. Thanks,
But in that case shouldn't kvm_ioctl_create_device also try
ops->release, i.e.
diff --git a/virt/kvm/kvm_main.c b/virt/kvm/kvm_main.c
index 6d971fb1b08d..f265e2738d46 100644
--- a/virt/kvm/kvm_main.c
+++ b/virt/kvm/kvm_main.c
@@ -4299,8 +4299,11 @@ static int kvm_ioctl_create_device(struct kvm *kvm,
kvm_put_kvm_no_destroy(kvm);
mutex_lock(&kvm->lock);
list_del(&dev->vm_node);
+ if (ops->release)
+ ops->release(dev);
mutex_unlock(&kvm->lock);
- ops->destroy(dev);
+ if (ops->destroy)
+ ops->destroy(dev);
btw why is destroy() not under the kvm->lock here? The comment in
kvm_destroy_devices() suggests that it is an exception there but not
necessarily here. Thanks,
return ret;
}
?
Paolo
--
Alexey
