On Thu, 2007-07-12 at 22:20 +0800, Dong, Eddie wrote:
> Apply to current kvm.git? Then we need to define false for > irqchip_in_kernel() which makes the patch quit stranger. I think what Avi is saying is this can be generalized as a separate feature independent of in-kernel-PIC. Since Avi and I are both advocating a separate capability for in-kernel-HLT, you wouldn't need to have a stubbed irqchip_in_kernel. Rather, you should have a flag that indicates whether userspace enabled the HLT capability or not. > > In theory this is only valid for a case with irqchip in kernel since we > always fall back to user if irqchip is in user. How so? In theory, we can halt in the kernel independent of modeling interrupts in the kernel. The difference is in the wakeup logic. For the patch that goes in pre-PIC, the wakeup is predicated solely on signal delivery. Later, the PIC series can modify the wakeup to include the in-kernel sources as well. -Greg ------------------------------------------------------------------------- This SF.net email is sponsored by DB2 Express Download DB2 Express C - the FREE version of DB2 express and take control of your XML. No limits. Just data. Click to get it now. http://sourceforge.net/powerbar/db2/ _______________________________________________ kvm-devel mailing list kvm-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/kvm-devel
