From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Alexander Graf <agraf@suse.de>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/3] kvm: s390: Exploiting generic userspace interface
 for cmma\
Date: Wed, 16 Apr 2014 21:47:52 +0200
Message-ID: <534EDE68.5060000@suse.de>
References: <1397128604-50161-1-git-send-email-borntraeger@de.ibm.com> <1397128604-50161-4-git-send-email-borntraeger@de.ibm.com> <20140416184906.GA8773@amt.cnet>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Cc: Gleb Natapov <gleb@kernel.org>,
	Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@redhat.com>, KVM <kvm@vger.kernel.org>,
	linux-s390 <linux-s390@vger.kernel.org>,
	Cornelia Huck <cornelia.huck@de.ibm.com>,
	Dominik Dingel <dingel@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
To: Marcelo Tosatti <mtosatti@redhat.com>,
	Christian Borntraeger <borntraeger@de.ibm.com>
Return-path: <kvm-owner@vger.kernel.org>
Received: from cantor2.suse.de ([195.135.220.15]:54054 "EHLO mx2.suse.de"
	rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP
	id S1751883AbaDPTrz (ORCPT <rfc822;kvm@vger.kernel.org>);
	Wed, 16 Apr 2014 15:47:55 -0400
In-Reply-To: <20140416184906.GA8773@amt.cnet>
Sender: kvm-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-ID: <kvm.vger.kernel.org>


On 16.04.14 20:49, Marcelo Tosatti wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 10, 2014 at 01:16:44PM +0200, Christian Borntraeger wrote:
>> From: Dominik Dingel <dingel@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
>>
>> To enable CMMA and to reset its state we use the vm kvm_device ioctls,
>> encapsulating attributes within the KVM_S390_VM_MEM_CTRL group.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Dominik Dingel <dingel@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
>> Signed-off-by: Christian Borntraeger <borntraeger@de.ibm.com>
>> ---
>>   Documentation/virtual/kvm/devices/vm.txt | 18 ++++++++++++++
>>   arch/s390/include/uapi/asm/kvm.h         |  7 ++++++
>>   arch/s390/kvm/kvm-s390.c                 | 42 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>>   3 files changed, 67 insertions(+)
> Sounds awkward to use these three ioctls for something not
> returned by KVM_CREATE_DEVICE.
>
> /* ioctls for fds returned by KVM_CREATE_DEVICE */
> #define KVM_SET_DEVICE_ATTR       _IOW(KVMIO,  0xe1, struct kvm_device_attr)
> #define KVM_GET_DEVICE_ATTR       _IOW(KVMIO,  0xe2, struct kvm_device_attr)
> #define KVM_HAS_DEVICE_ATTR       _IOW(KVMIO,  0xe3, struct kvm_device_attr)
>
> Is that much of a problem to introduce
>
> struct kvm_vm_attr and
>
> /* ioctls for fds returned by KVM_CREATE_VM */
> #define KVM_SET_VM_ATTR       _IOW(KVMIO,  0xa, struct kvm_vm_attr)
> #define KVM_GET_VM_ATTR       _IOW(KVMIO,  0xb, struct kvm_vm_attr)
> #define KVM_HAS_VM_ATTR       _IOW(KVMIO,  0xc, struct kvm_vm_attr)
>
> ?

We could just alias them, no?

#define KVM_SET_VM_ATTR KVM_SET_DEVICE_ATTR

But I don't feel strongly either way.


Alex

> Other than that (which would be mostly organizational issue) per-vm
> attributes seem fine to me.
>