Re: [PATCH RFC] pass write value to in_range pointers

[Avi Kivity]

On 06/22/2009 07:08 PM, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 22, 2009 at 11:45:00AM -0400, Gregory Haskins wrote:
>    
> > Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> >      
> > > It seems that a lot of complexity and trickiness with iosignalfd is
> > > handling the group/item relationship, which comes about because kvm does
> > > not currently let a device on the bus claim a write transaction based on the
> > > value written.  This could be greatly simplified if the value written
> > > was passed to the in_range check for write operation.  We could then
> > > simply make each kvm_iosignalfd a device on the bus.
> > >
> > > What does everyone think of the following lightly tested patch?
> > >
> > >        
> > Hi Michael,
> >    Its interesting, but I am not convinced its necessary.  We created the
> > group/item layout because iosignalfds are unique in that they are
> > probably the only IO device that wants to do some kind of address
> > aliasing.
> >      
>
> We actually already have aliasing: is_write flag is used for this
> purpose. Actually, it's possible to remove is_write by passing
> a null pointer in write_val for reads. I like this a bit less as
> the code generated is less compact ... Avi, what do you think?
>    

Greg, won't Michael's patch eliminate a big chunk from your iosignalfd 
patches?  Seems like a win to me.

> One is enough :)
> Seriously, do you see that this saves you all of RCU, linked lists and
> counters? You don't need to keep track of iofds, you don't need to
> implement your own lookup logic - you just use the kvm device
> and that's it.
>
>    

Yup.

--
error compiling committee.c: too many arguments to function

--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/