Sheng Yang wrote:
After reconsidering, I must say I prefer add/remove ioctls.
About the code size, I don't think it would increase much. I've rewritten
the code twice, I think I know the difference is little.
:( sorry about that.
For the option 2 route table ioctl, we got a array from userspace, and would
convert it to linked list and keep it in kernel. That's a kind of must(I
don't think you would prefer use a array in kernel), and it's very direct.
Actually, eventually we'd want an array indexed by gsi. Each element
would be a pointer to another array (one or two routing entries).
Certainly we don't want to iterate a list which could hold several
hundred interrupts for a large guest.
It's okay to start with a linked list, but eventually we'll want
something faster.
So, we have to insert/delete route entry for both. What's the real
difference we do it one by one or do it all at once. I don't think it is
much different on the code size. And it's indeed very clear and direct.
Beside this, option 2 seems strange. Why should we handle this table in this
way when it won't result in significant code reduce. Insert/delete entry it
there, look up entry is also there, not many things changed. And it's not
that direct as option 1, which also can be a source of bugs.
How do you think?
I'm not convinced. Please post your latest, and I will post a
counter-proposal.
--
error compiling committee.c: too many arguments to function
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe kvm" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
