From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Paul Mackerras Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH v3 1/6] kvm: add device control API Date: Fri, 5 Apr 2013 12:02:06 +1100 Message-ID: <20130405010206.GA22465@drongo> References: <1364856473-25245-1-git-send-email-scottwood@freescale.com> <1364954273-18196-1-git-send-email-scottwood@freescale.com> <1364954273-18196-2-git-send-email-scottwood@freescale.com> <20130404104135.GB17919@redhat.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Cc: Scott Wood , Alexander Graf , kvm-ppc@vger.kernel.org, kvm@vger.kernel.org To: Gleb Natapov Return-path: Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20130404104135.GB17919@redhat.com> Sender: kvm-ppc-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: kvm.vger.kernel.org On Thu, Apr 04, 2013 at 01:41:35PM +0300, Gleb Natapov wrote: > Since now each device has its own fd is it an advantage to enforce > common interface between different devices? If we do so though why > not handle file creation, ioctl and file descriptor lifetime in the > common code. Common code will have "struct kvm_device" with "struct > kvm_device_arch" and "struct kvm_device_ops" members. Instead of > kvm_mpic_ioctl there will be kvm_device_ioctl which will despatch ioctls > to a device using kvm_device->ops->(set|get|has)_attr pointers. I thought about making the same request, but when I looked at it, the amount of code that could be made common in this way is pretty tiny, and doing that involves a bit of extra complexity, so I thought that on the whole it wouldn't be worthwhile. Paul.