Re: [kvmarm] [PATCH v5.1 0/2] KVM: ARM: Rename KVM_SET_DEVICE_ADDRESS

[Marcelo Tosatti <mtosatti@redhat.com>]

On Thu, Jan 10, 2013 at 04:40:12PM -0600, Scott Wood wrote:
> On 01/10/2013 04:28:01 PM, Marcelo Tosatti wrote:
> >On Wed, Jan 09, 2013 at 10:37:20PM +0100, Alexander Graf wrote:
> >>
> >> >
> >> >> >> We can start to introduce (and fix ARM) with a generic
> >ioctl in the MPIC patches then.
> >> >> >
> >> >> > The ioctl is already generic, except for its name.
> >> >> It's making a few wrong assumptions:
> >> >>  * maximum size of value is u64
> >> >
> >> > This is tolerable IMHO.
> >> >
> >> >>  * combining device id (variable) with addr type id (const)
> >into a single field. It could just be split into multiple fields
> >> >
> >> > I agree, but that could be lived with as well.
> >> >
> >> > I get that there's a tradeoff between getting something in
> >now, versus waiting until the API is more refined.  Tagging it
> >with a particular ISA seems like an odd way of saying "soon to be
> >deprecated", though.  What happens if we're still squabbling over
> >the perfect replacement API when we're trying to push PPC MPIC
> >stuff in?
> >
> >As mentioned, i fail to see the benefit in sharing 0.0x% of the
> >code (the
> >interface), while the remaining code is not shared.
> 
> Pointlessly making things architecture-specific just makes more work
> for people who later need the functionality on another architecture.
> It might not be much in this case (unless a particular device ends
> up being used on multiple architectures), but the principle still
> applies.  It's also more work for tools like strace, and could get
> in the way of the userspace caller using common code.
> 
> >> Then we're the ones who have to come up with a good interface.
> >
> >Or just have KVM_SET_PPC_DEVICE_ADDRESS. Is there a downside to that?
> 
> Besides the above, and my original complaint that it shouldn't be
> specific to addresses?
> 
> -Scott

I did not really grasp that ('shouldnt be specific to addresses'), but
anyway.

OK, can you write down your proposed improvements to the interface?
In case you have something ready, otherwise there is time pressure 
to merge the ARM port.

That is, if you have interest/energy to spend in a possibly reusable 
interface, as long as that does not delay integration of the ARM code,
i don't think the ARM people will mind that.

As mentioned in the thread, they (ARM) require configurable device 
address.