From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Scott Wood Date: Tue, 28 May 2013 23:35:15 +0000 Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/4] KVM: PPC: Add support for IOMMU in-kernel handling Message-Id: <1369784115.18630.27@snotra> List-Id: References: <1369763138.18630.3@snotra> <51A53E20.3020205@ozlabs.ru> In-Reply-To: <51A53E20.3020205@ozlabs.ru> (from aik@ozlabs.ru on Tue May 28 18:30:40 2013) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: Alexey Kardashevskiy Cc: David Gibson , kvm@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, kvm-ppc@vger.kernel.org, Alexander Graf , Paul Mackerras , linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org On 05/28/2013 06:30:40 PM, Alexey Kardashevskiy wrote: > >> >>> @@ -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 > >> 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 being "kept together". -Scott From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from co1outboundpool.messaging.microsoft.com (co1ehsobe002.messaging.microsoft.com [216.32.180.185]) (using TLSv1 with cipher AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (Client CN "mail.global.frontbridge.com", Issuer "MSIT Machine Auth CA 2" (not verified)) by ozlabs.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 6ECE82C0340 for ; Wed, 29 May 2013 09:35:26 +1000 (EST) Date: Tue, 28 May 2013 18:35:15 -0500 From: Scott Wood Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/4] KVM: PPC: Add support for IOMMU in-kernel handling To: Alexey Kardashevskiy References: <1369763138.18630.3@snotra> <51A53E20.3020205@ozlabs.ru> In-Reply-To: <51A53E20.3020205@ozlabs.ru> (from aik@ozlabs.ru on Tue May 28 18:30:40 2013) Message-ID: <1369784115.18630.27@snotra> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; delsp=Yes; format=Flowed Cc: kvm@vger.kernel.org, Alexander Graf , kvm-ppc@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Paul Mackerras , linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org, David Gibson List-Id: Linux on PowerPC Developers Mail List List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , On 05/28/2013 06:30:40 PM, Alexey Kardashevskiy wrote: > >> >>> @@ -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 =20 > devices) is > >> 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? >=20 > Yes. Sigh. That's the same thing repeated. There's only one IOCTL. =20 Nothing is being "kept together". -Scott= From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Scott Wood Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/4] KVM: PPC: Add support for IOMMU in-kernel handling Date: Tue, 28 May 2013 18:35:15 -0500 Message-ID: <1369784115.18630.27@snotra> References: <1369763138.18630.3@snotra> <51A53E20.3020205@ozlabs.ru> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; delsp=Yes; format=Flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8BIT Cc: David Gibson , , , , Alexander Graf , Paul Mackerras , To: Alexey Kardashevskiy Return-path: In-Reply-To: <51A53E20.3020205@ozlabs.ru> (from aik@ozlabs.ru on Tue May 28 18:30:40 2013) Content-Disposition: inline Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: kvm.vger.kernel.org On 05/28/2013 06:30:40 PM, Alexey Kardashevskiy wrote: > >> >>> @@ -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 > >> 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 being "kept together". -Scott