![]() | |||||||||||
Messages in this thread |
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 majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/ | ||||||||||
| Last update: 2006-10-30 10:11 [from the cache] ©2003-2008 | |||||||||||