Christoffer Dall c.d...@virtualopensystems.com writes:
that's fine, but then the #define's shouldn't be called something with
COPROC in their names.
Sure, feel free to rename it. I failed to come up with a concise, clear
name, so coproc stuck.
Cheers,
Rusty.
--
To unsubscribe from this list:
On 1 September 2012 20:40, Christoffer Dall
c.d...@virtualopensystems.com wrote:
On Sep 1, 2012, at 6:25 AM, Peter Maydell peter.mayd...@linaro.org wrote:
On 1 September 2012 10:16, Avi Kivity a...@redhat.com wrote:
On 08/29/2012 11:21 AM, Rusty Russell wrote:
Peter Maydell wrote:
...but if
On Tue, Sep 4, 2012 at 9:09 AM, Peter Maydell peter.mayd...@linaro.org wrote:
On 1 September 2012 20:40, Christoffer Dall
c.d...@virtualopensystems.com wrote:
On Sep 1, 2012, at 6:25 AM, Peter Maydell peter.mayd...@linaro.org wrote:
On 1 September 2012 10:16, Avi Kivity a...@redhat.com wrote:
On 08/29/2012 08:29 AM, Christoffer Dall wrote:
On Tue, Aug 28, 2012 at 4:48 PM, Rusty Russell rusty.russ...@linaro.org
wrote:
No structures at all any more.
I fail to see the great benefit of all this. The code is certainly
not easier to read and it's certainly not more clear what is
On 08/29/2012 11:21 AM, Rusty Russell wrote:
+ /* Coprocessor 0 means we want a core register. */
+ if ((u32)reg-id KVM_REG_ARM_COPROC_START == 0)
+ return set_core_reg(vcpu, reg);
...but if we do go this path, you can't use coprocessor 0
to mean core
On 1 September 2012 10:16, Avi Kivity a...@redhat.com wrote:
On 08/29/2012 11:21 AM, Rusty Russell wrote:
+ /* Coprocessor 0 means we want a core register. */
+ if ((u32)reg-id KVM_REG_ARM_COPROC_START == 0)
+ return set_core_reg(vcpu, reg);
...but if we do go
On Sep 1, 2012, at 6:25 AM, Peter Maydell peter.mayd...@linaro.org wrote:
On 1 September 2012 10:16, Avi Kivity a...@redhat.com wrote:
On 08/29/2012 11:21 AM, Rusty Russell wrote:
+ /* Coprocessor 0 means we want a core register. */
+ if ((u32)reg-id KVM_REG_ARM_COPROC_START ==
On Tue, Aug 28, 2012 at 4:48 PM, Rusty Russell rusty.russ...@linaro.org wrote:
No structures at all any more.
I fail to see the great benefit of all this. The code is certainly
not easier to read and it's certainly not more clear what is going on.
Is this simply so we don't have to copy
On 29 August 2012 00:48, Rusty Russell rusty.russ...@linaro.org wrote:
No structures at all any more.
I'm not fussed whether we use structs for the core regs or
not; they're not exactly going to change in future so it's
purely a question of whether you think it's aesthetically
prettier to have
Peter Maydell peter.mayd...@linaro.org writes:
On 29 August 2012 00:48, Rusty Russell rusty.russ...@linaro.org wrote:
No structures at all any more.
I'm not fussed whether we use structs for the core regs or
not; they're not exactly going to change in future so it's
purely a question of
Rusty Russell rusty.russ...@linaro.org writes:
No structures at all any more.
Note: the encoding of general registers makes sense, but it's not
completely logical so the code is quite messy. It would actually be
far neater to expose the struct kvm_vcpu_regs, and use offsets into
that as the
No structures at all any more.
Note: the encoding of general registers makes sense, but it's not
completely logical so the code is quite messy. It would actually be
far neater to expose the struct kvm_vcpu_regs, and use offsets into
that as the ABI.
Peter?
Signed-off-by: Rusty Russell
12 matches
Mail list logo
