On Thu, Jun 22, 2017 at 11:58:14AM +0200, David Hildenbrand wrote: > On 21.06.2017 16:02, Marc-André Lureau wrote: > > Add a new Linux-specific memory backend, similar to hostmem-file, > > except that it doesn't need file path. It also try to enforce memory > > sealing if available. It is thus slightly easier and secure, and is > > compatible with transparent huge-pages since Linux 4.8. > > > > v4: > > - rebased, now that preliminary patches are merged > > > > v3: > > - make vhost-user-test use memfd only if possible > > - rebased > > > > v1->v2: > > - make it linux-specific > > - minor changes and commit message tweaks > > > > Marc-André Lureau (3): > > memfd: split qemu_memfd_alloc() > > Add memfd based hostmem > > tests: use memfd in vhost-user-test > > > > include/qemu/memfd.h | 2 ++ > > backends/hostmem-memfd.c | 67 > > +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ > > tests/vhost-user-test.c | 68 > > +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++----------------- > > util/memfd.c | 42 ++++++++++++++++++------------ > > backends/Makefile.objs | 2 ++ > > qemu-options.hx | 11 ++++++++ > > 6 files changed, 151 insertions(+), 41 deletions(-) > > create mode 100644 backends/hostmem-memfd.c > > > > Just wondering if it would make more sense to add a new parameter to the > ram backend. Sorry if this has already been discussed.
That was my first thought, too. But although it requires more boilerplate code, a separate class gives us better input specification/validation for free: e.g. if we add memfd-specific options in the future, we don't even need to document them as "valid only in memfd mode", because they will exist only in the memfd class. -- Eduardo
