From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Scott Wood Subject: Re: [kvmarm] [PATCH v5.1 0/2] KVM: ARM: Rename KVM_SET_DEVICE_ADDRESS Date: Fri, 11 Jan 2013 14:11:18 -0600 Message-ID: <1357935078.5475.10@snotra> References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; delsp=Yes; format=Flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8BIT Cc: Marcelo Tosatti , Christoffer Dall , "kvm@vger.kernel.org list" , "" , "" To: Alexander Graf Return-path: Received: from db3ehsobe003.messaging.microsoft.com ([213.199.154.141]:28203 "EHLO db3outboundpool.messaging.microsoft.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753537Ab3AKUL0 convert rfc822-to-8bit (ORCPT ); Fri, 11 Jan 2013 15:11:26 -0500 In-Reply-To: (from agraf@suse.de on Fri Jan 11 09:42:55 2013) Content-Disposition: inline Sender: kvm-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On 01/11/2013 09:42:55 AM, Alexander Graf wrote: > > On 11.01.2013, at 02:10, Scott Wood wrote: > > > struct kvm_device_attr { > > __u32 device; > > This needs some semantic specification. Is device a constant value? > Is it the return value of CREATE_IRQCHIP? As proposed, it's up to the architecture to provide that specification. In theory this could be used for things other than IRQ chips. We could still say that device creation functions return a valid device ID (if the device has any attributes), as well as have other architecture-specific ways of describing device IDs (static enumeration). Or we could have non-architecture-specific static enumeration. Or just require that all devices be explicitly created by something that returns the ID. Do you have a preferred approach? -Scott