On Mon, 2011-07-04 at 17:45 +0300, Avi Kivity wrote: > On 07/04/2011 05:38 PM, Sasha Levin wrote: > > > > > > In general incremental development is great, but I don't want to > > > fragment the ABI. I'd like to be able to forward an entire PCI BAR over > > > a pipe. That means sending the address/data/length tuple, and both read > > > and write support. > > > > Would this mean that for sockets we want to remove the 8 byte limit? > > Yes. Register a range and support all sizes. > > Perhaps it merits a separate ioctl. > > > What about eventfds? We can remove the limit there and assume that if > > the user asked for more than 8 bytes he knows what he's doing? > > I can't really see that as useful. eventfds destroy information; > without datamatch, you have no idea what value was written. Even with > datamatch, you have no idea how many times it was written. With a > range, you also have no idea which address was written. It's pretty > meaningless. >
It is pretty useless, but I didn't want the ioctl to behave differently when passing a socket or an eventfd. If we do go for a new ioctl as you suggested then yes, problem solved. -- Sasha. -- 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
