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 :-) 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. Cheers, Ben. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
