On Thu, Sep 05, 2013 at 02:05:09PM +1000, Benjamin Herrenschmidt wrote:
> On Tue, 2013-09-03 at 13:53 +0300, Gleb Natapov wrote:
> > > Or supporting all IOMMU links (and leaving emulated stuff as is) in on
> > > "device" is the last thing I have to do and then you'll ack the patch?
> > >
> > I am concerned more about API here. Internal implementation details I
> > leave to powerpc experts :)
>
> So Gleb, I want to step in for a bit here.
>
> While I understand that the new KVM device API is all nice and shiny and that this
> whole thing should probably have been KVM devices in the first place (had they
> existed or had we been told back then), the point is, the API for handling
> HW IOMMUs that Alexey is trying to add is an extension of an existing mechanism
> used for emulated IOMMUs.
>
> The internal data structure is shared, and fundamentally, by forcing him to
> use that new KVM device for the "new stuff", we create a oddball API with
> an ioctl for one type of iommu and a KVM device for the other, which makes
> the implementation a complete mess in the kernel (and you should care :-)
>
Is it unfixable mess? Even if Alexey will do what you suggested earlier?
- Convert *both* existing TCE objects to the new
KVM_CREATE_DEVICE, and have some backward compat code for the old one.
The point is implementation usually can be changed, but for API it is
much harder to do so.
> So for something completely new, I would tend to agree with you. However, I
> still think that for this specific case, we should just plonk-in the original
> ioctl proposed by Alexey and be done with it.
>
Do you think this is the last extension to IOMMU code, or we will see
more and will use same justification to continue adding ioctls?
--
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
