Re: [PATCH 3/4] KVM: PPC: Add support for IOMMU in-kernel handling

On 05/29/2013 06:10:33 PM, Alexey Kardashevskiy wrote:

On 05/30/2013 06:05 AM, Scott Wood wrote:

quoted

On 05/28/2013 07:12:32 PM, Alexey Kardashevskiy wrote:

quoted

On 05/29/2013 09:35 AM, Scott Wood wrote:

quoted

On 05/28/2013 06:30:40 PM, Alexey Kardashevskiy wrote:

quoted

quoted

quoted

quoted

quoted

quoted

@@ -939,6 +940,9 @@ struct kvm_s390_ucas_mapping {

#define KVM_GET_DEVICE_ATTR      _IOW(KVMIO,  0xe2, =20

struct

quoted

quoted

quoted

quoted

quoted

quoted

quoted

quoted

quoted

kvm_device_attr)
#define KVM_HAS_DEVICE_ATTR      _IOW(KVMIO,  0xe3, =20

struct

quoted

quoted

quoted

quoted

quoted

quoted

quoted

quoted

quoted

kvm_device_attr)

+/* ioctl for SPAPR TCE IOMMU */
+#define KVM_CREATE_SPAPR_TCE_IOMMU _IOW(KVMIO,  0xe4, =20

struct

quoted

quoted

quoted

quoted

quoted

quoted

quoted

quoted

quoted

kvm_create_spapr_tce_iommu)

Shouldn't this go under the vm ioctl section?

The KVM_CREATE_SPAPR_TCE_IOMMU ioctl (the version for =20

emulated

quoted

quoted

quoted

quoted

devices) is

quoted

quoted

in this section so I decided to keep them together. Wrong?

You decided to keep KVM_CREATE_SPAPR_TCE_IOMMU together with
KVM_CREATE_SPAPR_TCE_IOMMU?

Yes.

Sigh.  That's the same thing repeated.  There's only one IOCTL.

Nothing is

quoted

being "kept together".

Sorry, I meant this ioctl - KVM_CREATE_SPAPR_TCE.

But you didn't put it in the same section as KVM_CREATE_SPAPR_TCE.  =20

0xe0

quoted

begins a different section.

=20
It is not really obvious that there are sections as no comment defines
those :)

There is a comment /* ioctls for fds returned by KVM_CREATE_DEVICE */

Putting KVM_CREATE_DEVICE in there was mainly to avoid dealing with the =20
ioctl number conflict mess in the vm-ioctl section, but at least that =20
one is related to the device control API. :-)

But yes, makes sense to move it up a bit and change the code to 0xad.

0xad is KVM_KVMCLOCK_CTRL

-Scott=

On 05/30/2013 09:14 AM, Scott Wood wrote:

On 05/29/2013 06:10:33 PM, Alexey Kardashevskiy wrote:

quoted

On 05/30/2013 06:05 AM, Scott Wood wrote:

quoted

On 05/28/2013 07:12:32 PM, Alexey Kardashevskiy wrote:

quoted

On 05/29/2013 09:35 AM, Scott Wood wrote:

quoted

On 05/28/2013 06:30:40 PM, Alexey Kardashevskiy wrote:

quoted

quoted

quoted

quoted

quoted

quoted

@@ -939,6 +940,9 @@ struct kvm_s390_ucas_mapping {

#define KVM_GET_DEVICE_ATTR      _IOW(KVMIO,  0xe2, struct
kvm_device_attr)
#define KVM_HAS_DEVICE_ATTR      _IOW(KVMIO,  0xe3, struct
kvm_device_attr)

+/* ioctl for SPAPR TCE IOMMU */
+#define KVM_CREATE_SPAPR_TCE_IOMMU _IOW(KVMIO,  0xe4, struct
kvm_create_spapr_tce_iommu)

Shouldn't this go under the vm ioctl section?

The KVM_CREATE_SPAPR_TCE_IOMMU ioctl (the version for emulated

devices) is

quoted

quoted

in this section so I decided to keep them together. Wrong?

You decided to keep KVM_CREATE_SPAPR_TCE_IOMMU together with
KVM_CREATE_SPAPR_TCE_IOMMU?

Yes.

Sigh.  That's the same thing repeated.  There's only one IOCTL.

Nothing is

quoted

being "kept together".

Sorry, I meant this ioctl - KVM_CREATE_SPAPR_TCE.

But you didn't put it in the same section as KVM_CREATE_SPAPR_TCE.  0xe0
begins a different section.

It is not really obvious that there are sections as no comment defines
those :)

There is a comment /* ioctls for fds returned by KVM_CREATE_DEVICE */

Putting KVM_CREATE_DEVICE in there was mainly to avoid dealing with the
ioctl number conflict mess in the vm-ioctl section, but at least that one
is related to the device control API. :-)

quoted

But yes, makes sense to move it up a bit and change the code to 0xad.

0xad is KVM_KVMCLOCK_CTRL

That's it. I am _completely_ confused now. No system whatsoever :(
What rule should I use in order to choose the number for my new ioctl? :)



-- 
Alexey