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

[Marcelo Tosatti]

On Wed, Jan 09, 2013 at 03:15:43PM -0600, Scott Wood wrote:
> On 01/09/2013 02:12:16 PM, Alexander Graf wrote:
> >
> >On 09.01.2013, at 20:50, Scott Wood wrote:
> >
> >> On 01/09/2013 10:48:47 AM, Alexander Graf wrote:
> >>> On 09.01.2013, at 17:26, Christoffer Dall wrote:
> >>> > Renames the KVM_SET_DEVICE_ADDRESS to KVM_ARM_SET_DEVICE_ADDR
> >>> > to make it obvious that this is ARM specific in lack of a
> >better generic
> >>> > interface.
> >>> >
> >>> > Once we agree on a better interface the KVM/ARM code can also
> >take
> >>> > advantage of that, but until then we don't want to hold up
> >the KVM/ARM
> >>> > patches.
> >>> Works for me. Scott, are you happy with this one too?
> >>
> >> Not really, given that it will stay around forever even after
> >something new is introduced.
> >
> >But only in ARM specific code.
> 
> ...which I'll probably have to deal with when Freescale's
> virtualization-capable ARM chips come along.  I don't see "it's only
> in that other architecture" as "it might as well not exist".

Doesnt it make sense to make it extensible by adding some reserved
space and a flags field? (to the ioctl) (independently of anything
else).

So that, say, supporting new ARM processors does not require adding 
a new ioctl?

Having a single ioctl does not increase code sharing significantly
because large percentage of the code both in QEMU and the kernel are not
shared (well perhaps except the interface).

> >> If you're going to change the name, why not just change it to
> >KVM_SET_DEVICE_CONFIG?  Can we change the name later if nothing
> >else changes (so it's still binary compatible)?
> >
> >Because that again implies that it's generic enough. And to reach
> >that conclusion will take more time than we should spend on this
> >now.
> 
> If the conclusion later on is that it is good enough, can the name
> be changed then?
> 
> >>> 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?
> 
> Perhaps the threshold for an API becoming "permanent" should not be
> acceptance into the tree, but rather the removal of an
> "experimental" tag (including a way of shutting off experimental
> APIs to make sure you're not depending on them).  Sort of like
> CONFIG_EXPERIMENTAL, except actually used for its intended purpose
> (distributions should have it *off* by default), and preferably
> managed at runtime.  Sort of like drivers/staging, except for APIs
> rather than drivers.  Changes at that point should require more
> justification than before merging, but would not have the strict
> compatibility requirement that non-experimental APIs have.  This
> would make collaboration and testing easier on APIs that aren't
> ready to be permanent.
> 
> >  * the id is 100% architecture specific. It shouldn't be. At
> >least the "device id" field should be generic.
> 
> That's a documentation issue that could be changed to have all
> architectures adopt what is currently specified for ARM, without
> breaking compatibility.
> 
> >I'm not sure if we can come up with more problems in that API when
> >staring at it a bit longer and/or we would actually start using it
> >for more things. So for the sake of not holding up the ARM code,
> >I'm perfectly fine to clutter ARM's ioctl handling code with an
> >ioctl that is already deprecated at its introduction, as long as
> >we don't hold everything else up meanwhile.
> 
> I'm not in a position to block it, and if I were I presumably would
> have seen this in time for feedback to matter.  That's different
> from actually being happy. :-)
>
> -Scott
> --
> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe kvm" in
> the body of a message to majordomo at vger.kernel.org
> More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html