On Mon, 2007-10-29 at 10:41 +0800, Zhang, Xiantao wrote:
> Anthony Liguori wrote:
> > Hollis Blanchard wrote:
> >>> I don't know the privious story about this thread, but now I can't
> >>> understand the move. Why do we move all the structure to
> >>> arch-specific ? For IA64 side, almostly we can reuse them directly,
> >>> and just see some special fields as arch-specific. So, I think, we
> >>> should keep common fields in kvmctl.h.
> >>>
> >>
> >> Are you suggesting that kvm_callbacks should be the union of all
> >> callbacks used on all architectures, and for any given architecture
> >> only a subset are actually used?
> >>
> >
> > I think two separate callback structures would make more sense.
> >
> > Quite a few of the callbacks should have common implementations. For
> > instance, all of the io callbacks and the io_window callback should be
> > the same. I would expect most architectures have a concept of a
> > "halt" so that should probably be the same too. That pretty much
> > covers the majority of the callbacks structure :-)
>
> Agree.
OK, are you changing your position then? Anthony is saying there should
be multiple callback data structure definitions, but that the
*implementations* of some of those callbacks should be shared. For
example:
ia64.h:
struct kvm_callbacks {
...
.inb = pio_inb,
};
x86.h:
struct kvm_callbacks {
...
.inb = pio_inb,
};
pio.c (built only for ia64 and x86):
int pio_inb(port) {
...
}
--
Hollis Blanchard
IBM Linux Technology Center
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
This SF.net email is sponsored by: Splunk Inc.
Still grepping through log files to find problems? Stop.
Now Search log events and configuration files using AJAX and a browser.
Download your FREE copy of Splunk now >> http://get.splunk.com/
_______________________________________________
kvm-devel mailing list
kvm-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/kvm-devel
