On Wed, Aug 28, 2013 at 11:26:31AM +1000, Benjamin Herrenschmidt wrote: > On Wed, 2013-08-28 at 10:51 +1000, Alexey Kardashevskiy wrote: > > The ioctl I made up is basically a copy of KVM_CREATE_SPAPR_TCE which does > > the same thing for emulated devices and it is there for quite a while but > > it is not really extensible. And these two ioctls share some bits of code. > > Now we will have 2 pieces of code which do almost the same thing but in a > > different way. Kinda sucks :( > > Right. Thus the question, Gleb, we can either: > > - Keep Alexey patch as-is allowing us to *finally* merge that stuff > that's been around for monthes > > - Convert *both* existing TCE objects to the new > KVM_CREATE_DEVICE, and have some backward compat code for the old one. > > I don't think it makes sense to have the "emulated TCE" and "IOMMU TCE" > objects use a fundamentally different API and infrastructure. > As a general rule we are not going to mandate converting old devices to new API, but if it make sense to do here I would much prefer that over adding another special ioctl > > >> So my stuff is not going to upstream again. Heh. Ok. I'll implement it. > > >> > > > Thanks! Should I keep KVM_CAP_SPAPR_MULTITCE capability patch or can I > > > drop it for now? > > > > Please keep it, it is unrelated to the IOMMU-VFIO thing. > -- Gleb. -- 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
