From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S935167AbaH0PnZ (ORCPT ); Wed, 27 Aug 2014 11:43:25 -0400 Received: from mail-we0-f177.google.com ([74.125.82.177]:43328 "EHLO mail-we0-f177.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S934523AbaH0PnX (ORCPT ); Wed, 27 Aug 2014 11:43:23 -0400 Message-ID: <53FDFC82.1050505@linaro.org> Date: Wed, 27 Aug 2014 17:42:58 +0200 From: Eric Auger User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:24.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/24.2.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Alex Williamson CC: eric.auger@st.com, christoffer.dall@linaro.org, marc.zyngier@arm.com, linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org, kvmarm@lists.cs.columbia.edu, kvm@vger.kernel.org, joel.schopp@amd.com, kim.phillips@freescale.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, patches@linaro.org, will.deacon@arm.com, a.motakis@virtualopensystems.com, a.rigo@virtualopensystems.com, john.liuli@huawei.com Subject: Re: [RFC 8/9] KVM: KVM-VFIO: add kvm_vfio_arch_data and accessors References: <1408973264-30384-1-git-send-email-eric.auger@linaro.org> <1408973264-30384-9-git-send-email-eric.auger@linaro.org> <1409079750.2906.130.camel@ul30vt.home> <53FDF7B6.507@linaro.org> <1409153842.2906.255.camel@ul30vt.home> In-Reply-To: <1409153842.2906.255.camel@ul30vt.home> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On 08/27/2014 05:37 PM, Alex Williamson wrote: > On Wed, 2014-08-27 at 17:22 +0200, Eric Auger wrote: >> On 08/26/2014 09:02 PM, Alex Williamson wrote: >>> On Mon, 2014-08-25 at 15:27 +0200, Eric Auger wrote: >>>> add a pointer to architecture specific data in kvm_vfio struct >>>> add accessors to keep kvm_vfio private >>>> >>>> Signed-off-by: Eric Auger >>>> --- >>>> arch/arm/include/asm/kvm_host.h | 8 ++++++++ >>>> virt/kvm/vfio.c | 21 +++++++++++++++++++++ >>>> 2 files changed, 29 insertions(+) >>>> >>>> diff --git a/arch/arm/include/asm/kvm_host.h b/arch/arm/include/asm/kvm_host.h >>>> index 62cbf5b..4f1edbf 100644 >>>> --- a/arch/arm/include/asm/kvm_host.h >>>> +++ b/arch/arm/include/asm/kvm_host.h >>>> @@ -177,6 +177,14 @@ void kvm_vfio_device_put_external_user(struct vfio_device *vdev); >>>> int kvm_vfio_external_get_type(struct vfio_device *vdev); >>>> struct device *kvm_vfio_external_get_base_device(struct vfio_device *vdev); >>>> >>>> +struct kvm_vfio; >>>> +struct kvm_vfio_arch_data; >>>> +void kvm_vfio_device_set_arch_data(struct kvm_vfio *kv, >>>> + struct kvm_vfio_arch_data *ptr); >>>> +struct kvm_vfio_arch_data *kvm_vfio_device_get_arch_data(struct kvm_vfio *kv); >>>> +void kvm_vfio_lock(struct kvm_vfio *kv); >>>> +void kvm_vfio_unlock(struct kvm_vfio *kv); >>>> + >>>> /* We do not have shadow page tables, hence the empty hooks */ >>>> static inline int kvm_age_hva(struct kvm *kvm, unsigned long hva) >>>> { >>>> diff --git a/virt/kvm/vfio.c b/virt/kvm/vfio.c >>>> index f1c4e35..177b71e 100644 >>>> --- a/virt/kvm/vfio.c >>>> +++ b/virt/kvm/vfio.c >>>> @@ -28,6 +28,7 @@ struct kvm_vfio { >>>> struct list_head group_list; >>>> struct mutex lock; >>>> bool noncoherent; >>>> + struct kvm_vfio_arch_data *arch_data; >>>> }; >>>> >>>> static struct vfio_group *kvm_vfio_group_get_external_user(struct file *filep) >>>> @@ -338,6 +339,26 @@ static int kvm_vfio_create(struct kvm_device *dev, u32 type) >>>> return 0; >>>> } >>>> >>>> +void kvm_vfio_device_set_arch_data(struct kvm_vfio *kv, >>>> + struct kvm_vfio_arch_data *ptr) >>>> +{ >>>> + kv->arch_data = ptr; >>>> +} >>>> + >>>> +struct kvm_vfio_arch_data *kvm_vfio_device_get_arch_data(struct kvm_vfio *kv) >>>> +{ >>> >>> My preference would be s/get_// >> ok >>> >>>> + return kv->arch_data; >>>> +} >>>> + >>>> +void kvm_vfio_lock(struct kvm_vfio *kv) >>>> +{ >>>> + mutex_lock(&kv->lock); >>>> +} >>>> + >>>> +void kvm_vfio_unlock(struct kvm_vfio *kv) >>>> +{ >>>> + mutex_unlock(&kv->lock); >>>> +} >>> >>> Gosh, what could go wrong... >> Hum sorry I did not understand what you meant here > > Sorry, I was just sarcastically noting that exposing an internal lock > like this seems to be asking for trouble. As you rework it to pull more > into the common code and generalize the architecture callouts, I hope we > can avoid exporting these locks. Thanks, ok thanks. No problem I learnt a new word ;-) > > Alex >