On 03.04.2013, at 19:37, Scott Wood wrote: > On 04/03/2013 08:22:37 AM, Alexander Graf wrote: >> 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. > > Things are already confusing. :-) > > I can move KVM_CREATE_DEVICE back with the other VM ioctls, but what number should it get? The last VM ioctl is 0xab (which is also a VCPU ioctl). Should I use 0xac (which is also a VCPU ioctl)? Or should I try to avoid a conflict, as was sometimes done in the past -- in which case, which number should I use? Gleb, Marcelo? 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
