On Wed, 2014-07-09 at 17:47 +0100, Will Deacon wrote:
> Hi Alex,
>
> On Wed, Jul 09, 2014 at 05:19:24PM +0100, Alex Williamson wrote:
> > On Tue, 2014-07-01 at 15:45 +0100, Will Deacon wrote:
> > > diff --git a/virt/kvm/vfio.c b/virt/kvm/vfio.c
> > > index ba1a93f935c7..bb11b36ee8a2 100644
> > > --- a/virt/kvm/vfio.c
> > > +++ b/virt/kvm/vfio.c
> > > @@ -246,6 +246,16 @@ static void kvm_vfio_destroy(struct kvm_device *dev)
> > > kfree(dev); /* alloc by kvm_ioctl_create_device, free by .destroy */
> > > }
> > >
> > > +static int kvm_vfio_create(struct kvm_device *dev, u32 type);
> > > +
> > > +static struct kvm_device_ops kvm_vfio_ops = {
> > > + .name = "kvm-vfio",
> > > + .create = kvm_vfio_create,
> > > + .destroy = kvm_vfio_destroy,
> > > + .set_attr = kvm_vfio_set_attr,
> > > + .has_attr = kvm_vfio_has_attr,
> > > +};
> > > +
> >
> > Why move the struct? We wouldn't need the prototype if it was left in
> > place and it seems like the only change we're making to set it static.
> > Functionally the change is fine, but the ordering was cleaner before
> > imho. Thanks,
>
> The problem is that kvm_vfio_create takes the address of kvm_vfio_ops:
>
> /* Only one VFIO "device" per VM */
> list_for_each_entry(tmp, &dev->kvm->devices, vm_node)
> if (tmp->ops == &kvm_vfio_ops)
> return -EBUSY;
>
> so you have a circular dependency, which I just resolved in the most obvious
> way to me. I'm happy to solve it a better way, if you have a preference?
Ok, that seems reasonable then. Thanks,
Alex
--
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
