On Thu, 2015-07-09 at 14:28 +0200, Joerg Roedel wrote: > On Tue, Jul 07, 2015 at 11:17:48AM -0600, Alex Williamson wrote: > > Hosting the bypass manager in kernel/irq seemed appropriate, but really > > it could be anywhere. Does anyone have a different preference or > > specifically want it under their scope? We had originally thought of > > this as an IOMMU service, but I think we've generalized it beyond that. > > I expect we should also add the necessary hooks to turn it into a > > loadable module to keep the tinification folks happy, I'll incorporate > > the current working changes and post a version with that. > > Yeah, this is only an IOMMU service on x86, afaik. So drivers/iommu is > probably the wrong place to host it. > > Will there be any other producers than VFIO or any other consumers than > KVM? If not, it should live in one of these spaces. KVM is probably the > best choice, as any hardware feature that uses this targets > virtualization, so there will hardly ever be another consumer than KVM. 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. 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
