From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: "Michael S. Tsirkin" Subject: Re: [PATCH] kvm: remove in_range from kvm_io_device Date: Wed, 24 Jun 2009 11:49:01 +0300 Message-ID: <20090624084901.GB22865@redhat.com> References: <20090623150008.GA21059@redhat.com> <4A4184C3.6060503@novell.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Cc: avi@redhat.com, kvm@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, mtosatti@redhat.com, paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com, markmc@redhat.com To: Gregory Haskins Return-path: Received: from mx2.redhat.com ([66.187.237.31]:36621 "EHLO mx2.redhat.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752362AbZFXIt2 (ORCPT ); Wed, 24 Jun 2009 04:49:28 -0400 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <4A4184C3.6060503@novell.com> Sender: kvm-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On Tue, Jun 23, 2009 at 09:43:31PM -0400, Gregory Haskins wrote: > Michael S. Tsirkin wrote: > > Remove in_range from kvm_io_device and ask read/write callbacks, if > > supplied, to perform range checks internally. This allows aliasing > > (mostly for in-kernel virtio), as well as better error handling by > > making it possible to pass errors up to userspace. And it's enough to > > look at the diffstat to see that it's a better API anyway. > > > > While we are at it, document locking rules for kvm_io_device. > > > > Hi Michael, > > I just tried to apply this to kvm.git/master, and it blew up really > badly. What tree should I be using? Ugh, this is against 2.6.30. I'll post kvm.git version soon.