On 2/5/2022 12:25 AM, Greg KH wrote:
On Fri, Feb 04, 2022 at 06:33:59PM -0800, Iouri Tarassov wrote:
> This is the first commit for adding support for a Hyper-V based
> vGPU implementation that exposes the DirectX API to Linux userspace.
>
Only add the interfaces for the changes that you need in this commit.
Do not add them all and then use them later, that makes it impossible to
review.
> ---
> MAINTAINERS | 7 +
> drivers/hv/Kconfig | 2 +
> drivers/hv/Makefile | 1 +
> drivers/hv/dxgkrnl/Kconfig | 26 +
> drivers/hv/dxgkrnl/Makefile | 5 +
> drivers/hv/dxgkrnl/dxgadapter.c | 172 +++
> drivers/hv/dxgkrnl/dxgkrnl.h | 223 ++++
> drivers/hv/dxgkrnl/dxgmodule.c | 736 ++++++++++++
> drivers/hv/dxgkrnl/dxgprocess.c | 17 +
> drivers/hv/dxgkrnl/dxgvmbus.c | 578 +++++++++
> drivers/hv/dxgkrnl/dxgvmbus.h | 855 ++++++++++++++
> drivers/hv/dxgkrnl/hmgr.c | 23 +
> drivers/hv/dxgkrnl/hmgr.h | 75 ++
> drivers/hv/dxgkrnl/ioctl.c | 24 +
> drivers/hv/dxgkrnl/misc.c | 37 +
> drivers/hv/dxgkrnl/misc.h | 89 ++
> include/linux/hyperv.h | 16 +
> include/uapi/misc/d3dkmthk.h | 1945 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> 18 files changed, 4831 insertions(+)
Would you want to review a 4800 line patch all at once?
greg k-h
Hi Greg,
Thank you for reviewing. I appreciate your time.
I am trying to find compromise between the number of patches and making
review easy. There are about 70 IOCTLs in the driver interface, so
having a patch
for every IOCTL seems excessive.
I tried to add only definitions for the internal objects, which are used
in the patch.
1. d3dkmthk.h defines the user mode interface structures. This is ported
from
the windows header at once. Is it acceptable to add it at it is?
2. dxgvmbus.h defines the VM bus interface between the linux guest and
the host.
It was ported from the windows version at once. Is it acceptable to add
it as it is?
3. Is it acceptable to combine logically connected IOCTLs to a single patch?
For example, IOCTLs for creation/destruction sync object and submission
of wait/signal operations.
Thanks
Iouri
