On Mon, Jun 30, 2014 at 06:22:55PM +0100, Paolo Bonzini wrote: > Il 30/06/2014 11:21, Cornelia Huck ha scritto: > > On Thu, 26 Jun 2014 18:30:16 +0100 > > Will Deacon <[email protected]> wrote: > >> diff --git a/include/uapi/linux/kvm.h b/include/uapi/linux/kvm.h > >> index e11d8f170a62..3b368166286f 100644 > >> --- a/include/uapi/linux/kvm.h > >> +++ b/include/uapi/linux/kvm.h > >> @@ -949,6 +949,7 @@ struct kvm_device_attr { > >> #define KVM_DEV_VFIO_GROUP_DEL 2 > >> #define KVM_DEV_TYPE_ARM_VGIC_V2 5 > >> #define KVM_DEV_TYPE_FLIC 6 > >> +#define KVM_DEV_TYPE_MAX 7 > > > > This means we always need to move this value once we introduce a new > > kvm device type. Can't you keep it in a dynamic list instead of a > > table? We just need to do the lookup during device creation anyway. > > There's also this wonderful thing called enum. ;) > > It would let Will keep the simpler code with an array, and autogenerate > KVM_DEV_TYPE_MAX.
Although this is uapi, so we may need to #define the symbols anyway to avoid breaking userspace #ifndef tests. What do you reckon; is this an ABI break? Will -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe kvm" in the body of a message to [email protected] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
