Arnd Bergmann wrote:
Separating the objects into different file descriptors sounds like a
good idea, but reusing an open dentry/inode with a new file and different
file operations is a rather unusual way to do it.
Yes, it doesn't feel right.
Your concept of allocating
a new context on each open is already weird, but there have been other
examples of that before.
Actually that seemed to me quite natural.
I'd suggest going to a syscall-based model with your own file system right
away, even if you don't use the spufs approach but something in the middle:
* You do a trivial nonmountable new file system with anonymous objects,
similar to eventpollfs, and hand out file descriptors to inodes in it,
for both the kvm and the vcpu objects.
* You replace the syscall you'd normally use to hand out a new kvm instance
with an ioctl on /dev/kvm, and don't allow any other operations on that
device.
This would be a much more consistant object model, compared with other
generic kernel functionality that is not bound to an actual device.
You still have all the flexibility of a loadable module without core
kernel changes for the development phase, and can easily switch to real
syscalls when merging it into mainline.
I agree, that sounds like a good plan. I'll look into it.
BTW, what does lsof show for spufs users? I thought lsof /dev/kvm would
be a good way to look for virtual machines.
--
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 [email protected]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
[Index of Archives]
[Kernel Newbies]
[Netfilter]
[Bugtraq]
[Photo]
[Stuff]
[Gimp]
[Yosemite News]
[MIPS Linux]
[ARM Linux]
[Linux Security]
[Linux RAID]
[Video 4 Linux]
[Linux for the blind]
[Linux Resources]
