On 16.04.14 20:49, Marcelo Tosatti wrote:
On Thu, Apr 10, 2014 at 01:16:44PM +0200, Christian Borntraeger wrote:
From: Dominik Dingel <dingel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
To enable CMMA and to reset its state we use the vm kvm_device ioctls,
encapsulating attributes within the KVM_S390_VM_MEM_CTRL group.
Signed-off-by: Dominik Dingel <dingel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Signed-off-by: Christian Borntraeger <borntraeger@xxxxxxxxxx>
---
Documentation/virtual/kvm/devices/vm.txt | 18 ++++++++++++++
arch/s390/include/uapi/asm/kvm.h | 7 ++++++
arch/s390/kvm/kvm-s390.c | 42 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
3 files changed, 67 insertions(+)
Sounds awkward to use these three ioctls for something not
returned by KVM_CREATE_DEVICE.
/* ioctls for fds returned by KVM_CREATE_DEVICE */
#define KVM_SET_DEVICE_ATTR _IOW(KVMIO, 0xe1, struct kvm_device_attr)
#define KVM_GET_DEVICE_ATTR _IOW(KVMIO, 0xe2, struct kvm_device_attr)
#define KVM_HAS_DEVICE_ATTR _IOW(KVMIO, 0xe3, struct kvm_device_attr)
Is that much of a problem to introduce
struct kvm_vm_attr and
/* ioctls for fds returned by KVM_CREATE_VM */
#define KVM_SET_VM_ATTR _IOW(KVMIO, 0xa, struct kvm_vm_attr)
#define KVM_GET_VM_ATTR _IOW(KVMIO, 0xb, struct kvm_vm_attr)
#define KVM_HAS_VM_ATTR _IOW(KVMIO, 0xc, struct kvm_vm_attr)
?
We could just alias them, no?
#define KVM_SET_VM_ATTR KVM_SET_DEVICE_ATTR
But I don't feel strongly either way.
Alex
Other than that (which would be mostly organizational issue) per-vm
attributes seem fine to me.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe kvm" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
