From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Alexey Kardashevskiy Date: Wed, 29 May 2013 23:29:13 +0000 Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/4] KVM: PPC: Add support for IOMMU in-kernel handling Message-Id: <51A68F49.6020908@ozlabs.ru> List-Id: References: <1369763138.18630.3@snotra> <51A53E20.3020205@ozlabs.ru> <1369784115.18630.27@snotra> <51A547F0.8090406@ozlabs.ru> <1369857949.18630.42@snotra> <51A68AE9.6070709@ozlabs.ru> <1369869272.18630.47@snotra> In-Reply-To: <1369869272.18630.47@snotra> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: Scott Wood 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 05/30/2013 09:14 AM, Scott Wood wrote: > On 05/29/2013 06:10:33 PM, Alexey Kardashevskiy wrote: >> On 05/30/2013 06:05 AM, Scott Wood wrote: >> > On 05/28/2013 07:12:32 PM, Alexey Kardashevskiy wrote: >> >> On 05/29/2013 09:35 AM, Scott Wood wrote: >> >> > 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". >> >> >> >> 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. :-) > >> 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 From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail-pd0-f179.google.com (mail-pd0-f179.google.com [209.85.192.179]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (Client CN "smtp.gmail.com", Issuer "Google Internet Authority" (not verified)) by ozlabs.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id ADEB42C0082 for ; Thu, 30 May 2013 09:29:22 +1000 (EST) Received: by mail-pd0-f179.google.com with SMTP id q11so9612724pdj.10 for ; Wed, 29 May 2013 16:29:20 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <51A68F49.6020908@ozlabs.ru> Date: Thu, 30 May 2013 09:29:13 +1000 From: Alexey Kardashevskiy MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Scott Wood Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/4] KVM: PPC: Add support for IOMMU in-kernel handling References: <1369763138.18630.3@snotra> <51A53E20.3020205@ozlabs.ru> <1369784115.18630.27@snotra> <51A547F0.8090406@ozlabs.ru> <1369857949.18630.42@snotra> <51A68AE9.6070709@ozlabs.ru> <1369869272.18630.47@snotra> In-Reply-To: <1369869272.18630.47@snotra> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=KOI8-R 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 05/30/2013 09:14 AM, Scott Wood wrote: > On 05/29/2013 06:10:33 PM, Alexey Kardashevskiy wrote: >> On 05/30/2013 06:05 AM, Scott Wood wrote: >> > On 05/28/2013 07:12:32 PM, Alexey Kardashevskiy wrote: >> >> On 05/29/2013 09:35 AM, Scott Wood wrote: >> >> > 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". >> >> >> >> 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. :-) > >> 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 From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Alexey Kardashevskiy Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/4] KVM: PPC: Add support for IOMMU in-kernel handling Date: Thu, 30 May 2013 09:29:13 +1000 Message-ID: <51A68F49.6020908@ozlabs.ru> References: <1369763138.18630.3@snotra> <51A53E20.3020205@ozlabs.ru> <1369784115.18630.27@snotra> <51A547F0.8090406@ozlabs.ru> <1369857949.18630.42@snotra> <51A68AE9.6070709@ozlabs.ru> <1369869272.18630.47@snotra> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=KOI8-R Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit 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 To: Scott Wood Return-path: In-Reply-To: <1369869272.18630.47@snotra> Sender: kvm-ppc-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: kvm.vger.kernel.org On 05/30/2013 09:14 AM, Scott Wood wrote: > On 05/29/2013 06:10:33 PM, Alexey Kardashevskiy wrote: >> On 05/30/2013 06:05 AM, Scott Wood wrote: >> > On 05/28/2013 07:12:32 PM, Alexey Kardashevskiy wrote: >> >> On 05/29/2013 09:35 AM, Scott Wood wrote: >> >> > 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". >> >> >> >> 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. :-) > >> 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