On 03.04.2013, at 04:17, Paul Mackerras wrote: > On Tue, Apr 02, 2013 at 08:19:56PM -0500, Scott Wood wrote: >> On 04/02/2013 08:02:39 PM, Paul Mackerras wrote: >>> On Mon, Apr 01, 2013 at 05:47:48PM -0500, Scott Wood wrote: >>>> +4.79 KVM_CREATE_DEVICE >>>> + >>>> +Capability: KVM_CAP_DEVICE_CTRL >>> >>> I notice this patch doesn't add this capability; >> >> Yes, it does (see below). >> >>> you add it in a later patch. >> >> Maybe you're thinking of KVM_CAP_IRQ_MPIC? > > No, I was referring to the addition to kvm_dev_ioctl_check_extension() > of a KVM_CAP_DEVICE_CTRL case. Since this patch adds the code to handle > KVM_CREATE_DEVICE ioctl it should also add the code to return 1 if > userspace queries the KVM_CAP_DEVICE_CTRL capability. > >>>> +/* ioctl for vm fd */ >>>> +#define KVM_CREATE_DEVICE _IOWR(KVMIO, 0xe0, struct >>> kvm_create_device) >>> >>> This define should go with the other VM ioctls, otherwise the next >>> person to add a VM ioctl will probably miss it and reuse the 0xe0 >>> code. >> >> That's actually why I moved it to a new section, with device control >> ioctls getting their own range, as the legacy "device model" and >> some other things did. 0xe0 is not the next ioctl that would be >> used for either vm or vcpu. The ioctl numbering is actually already >> a mess, with sometimes care being taken to keep vcpu and vm ioctls >> from overlapping, but on other places overlapping does happen. I'm >> not sure what exactly I should do here. > > Well, even if you are using a new range, I still think that > KVM_CREATE_DEVICE, being a VM ioctl, should go next to the other VM > ioctls. I guess it's ultimately up to the maintainers. I agree. Things get confusing for VM ioctls otherwise. 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
