Re: [PATCH 7/7] [v4] drivers/virt: introduce Freescale hypervisor management driver
On 6/9/2011 3:38 AM, Arnd Bergmann wrote: On Thursday 09 June 2011 01:10:09 Randy Dunlap wrote: On Wed, 8 Jun 2011 17:45:54 -0500 Timur Tabi wrote: Add the drivers/virt directory, which houses drivers that support virtualization environments, and add the Freescale hypervisor management driver. It can't go in linux/virt or linux/virt/fsl instead? why drivers/ ? or maybe linux/virt should be drivers/virt ? See discussion for v2 of this patch. I suggested that drivers/firmware and virt/ as options, the counterarguments were that drivers/firmware is for passive firmware as opposed to firmware that acts as a hypervisor, and that virt/ is for the host side of hypervisors like kvm, not for guests. The driver in here most closely resembles the xen dom0 model, where a priviledged guest controls other guests, but unlike xen there is a single driver file, so there is no need to have drivers/fsl-hv directory just for this one file. We do have a number of other hypervisors that fit in the same category, so they can be added here later. This still leaves open the question of what really should go in this new directory. Is it just for drivers that manage/control the hypervisor? Or is it also for drivers that just use the hypervisor to do I/O of some kind, but aren't related to any other family of drivers, i.e., a driver that would have been dumped in drivers/char or drivers/misc in the old days? My specific interest at the moment is the proposed tile-srom.c driver (https://patchwork.kernel.org/patch/843892/), which uses a simple hypervisor read/write API to access the portion of the SPI ROM used to hold the boot stream for a TILE processor. -- Chris Metcalf, Tilera Corp. http://www.tilera.com ___ Virtualization mailing list Virtualization@lists.linux-foundation.org https://lists.linux-foundation.org/mailman/listinfo/virtualization
Re: [PATCH 7/7] [v4] drivers/virt: introduce Freescale hypervisor management driver
On Friday 10 June 2011, Chris Metcalf wrote: This still leaves open the question of what really should go in this new directory. Is it just for drivers that manage/control the hypervisor? Or is it also for drivers that just use the hypervisor to do I/O of some kind, but aren't related to any other family of drivers, i.e., a driver that would have been dumped in drivers/char or drivers/misc in the old days? My specific interest at the moment is the proposed tile-srom.c driver (https://patchwork.kernel.org/patch/843892/), which uses a simple hypervisor read/write API to access the portion of the SPI ROM used to hold the boot stream for a TILE processor. I'd still put that driver in drivers/char for now, because it already contains similar drivers. We can probaby group them in a subdirectory of drivers/char at some point or move them out to a new directory. For your raw hcall passthrough driver, that would be something that should go into drivers/virt/ IMHO. Arnd ___ Virtualization mailing list Virtualization@lists.linux-foundation.org https://lists.linux-foundation.org/mailman/listinfo/virtualization
Re: [PATCH 7/7] [v4] drivers/virt: introduce Freescale hypervisor management driver
Randy Dunlap wrote: But it sounds like virt/ needs virt/host/ and virt/guest/ to me. I'm okay with that idea, except there's a consensus that drivers should be in drivers/. -- Timur Tabi Linux kernel developer at Freescale ___ Virtualization mailing list Virtualization@lists.linux-foundation.org https://lists.linux-foundation.org/mailman/listinfo/virtualization
Re: [PATCH 7/7] [v4] drivers/virt: introduce Freescale hypervisor management driver
Randy Dunlap wrote: I'm okay with that idea, except there's a consensus that drivers should be in drivers/. Like sound/ ? My understanding is that this is something that's considered broken and should be fixed, but I don't know what the holdup is. but what makes it a driver? That's a good point. Ok, so maybe I don't have any really good answers here. :-) -- Timur Tabi Linux kernel developer at Freescale ___ Virtualization mailing list Virtualization@lists.linux-foundation.org https://lists.linux-foundation.org/mailman/listinfo/virtualization
Re: [PATCH 7/7] [v4] drivers/virt: introduce Freescale hypervisor management driver
On Thursday 09 June 2011 01:10:09 Randy Dunlap wrote: On Wed, 8 Jun 2011 17:45:54 -0500 Timur Tabi wrote: Add the drivers/virt directory, which houses drivers that support virtualization environments, and add the Freescale hypervisor management driver. It can't go in linux/virt or linux/virt/fsl instead? why drivers/ ? or maybe linux/virt should be drivers/virt ? See discussion for v2 of this patch. I suggested that drivers/firmware and virt/ as options, the counterarguments were that drivers/firmware is for passive firmware as opposed to firmware that acts as a hypervisor, and that virt/ is for the host side of hypervisors like kvm, not for guests. The driver in here most closely resembles the xen dom0 model, where a priviledged guest controls other guests, but unlike xen there is a single driver file, so there is no need to have drivers/fsl-hv directory just for this one file. We do have a number of other hypervisors that fit in the same category, so they can be added here later. Arnd ___ Virtualization mailing list Virtualization@lists.linux-foundation.org https://lists.linux-foundation.org/mailman/listinfo/virtualization
Re: [PATCH 7/7] [v4] drivers/virt: introduce Freescale hypervisor management driver
On 06/09/11 00:38, Arnd Bergmann wrote: On Thursday 09 June 2011 01:10:09 Randy Dunlap wrote: On Wed, 8 Jun 2011 17:45:54 -0500 Timur Tabi wrote: Add the drivers/virt directory, which houses drivers that support virtualization environments, and add the Freescale hypervisor management driver. It can't go in linux/virt or linux/virt/fsl instead? why drivers/ ? or maybe linux/virt should be drivers/virt ? See discussion for v2 of this patch. I suggested that drivers/firmware and virt/ as options, the counterarguments were that drivers/firmware is for passive firmware as opposed to firmware that acts as a hypervisor, and that virt/ is for the host side of hypervisors like kvm, not for guests. OK, I read that thread. Didn't see a real consensus there. If you were not the drivers/misc/ maintainer, would you mind if this driver lived in drivers/misc/? I wouldn't. But it sounds like virt/ needs virt/host/ and virt/guest/ to me. The driver in here most closely resembles the xen dom0 model, where a priviledged guest controls other guests, but unlike xen there is a single driver file, so there is no need to have drivers/fsl-hv directory just for this one file. We do have a number of other hypervisors that fit in the same category, so they can be added here later. -- ~Randy *** Remember to use Documentation/SubmitChecklist when testing your code *** ___ Virtualization mailing list Virtualization@lists.linux-foundation.org https://lists.linux-foundation.org/mailman/listinfo/virtualization
Re: [PATCH 7/7] [v4] drivers/virt: introduce Freescale hypervisor management driver
On 06/09/11 09:36, Timur Tabi wrote: Randy Dunlap wrote: But it sounds like virt/ needs virt/host/ and virt/guest/ to me. I'm okay with that idea, except there's a consensus that drivers should be in drivers/. Like sound/ ? but what makes it a driver? -- ~Randy *** Remember to use Documentation/SubmitChecklist when testing your code *** ___ Virtualization mailing list Virtualization@lists.linux-foundation.org https://lists.linux-foundation.org/mailman/listinfo/virtualization
