On Fri, Mar 12, 2021 at 09:49:26AM -0800, Vipin Sharma <vipinsh@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > I will add some more information in the cover letter of the next version. Thanks. > Each one coming up with their own interaction is a duplicate effort > when they all need similar thing. Could this be expressed as a new BPF hook (when allocating/freeing such a resource unit)? The decision could be made based on the configured limit or even some other predicate. (I saw this proposed already but I haven't seen some more reasoning whether it's worse/better. IMO, BPF hooks are "cheaper" than full-blown controllers, though it's still new user API.) > As per my understanding this is the only for way for loadable modules > (kvm-amd in this case) to access Kernel APIs. Let me know if there is a > better way to do it. I understood the symbols are exported for such modularized builds. However, making them non-GPL exposes them to any out-of-tree modules, although, the resource types are supposed to stay hardcoded in the misc controller. So my point was to make them EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL to mark they're just a means of implementing the modularized builds and not an API. (But they'd remain API for out-of-tree GPL modules anyway, so take this reasoning of mine with a grain of salt.) Michal
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
