Avi Kivity wrote: > Carsten Otte wrote: >> Zhang, Xiantao wrote: >>> User-allocation should be what we are heading. But considering >>> compatibility with old user-space support, I think kernel-allocation >>> approach should exist for a long time. >> That's right. This is why I would prefer to have the corresponding >> code out of kvm_main.c: it may exist for a long time for x86. >> >>> I think we don't need to consider >>> this case now. Once the kernel-allocation approach is abandoned in >>> future, as you say, we can move them all into x86. >> I'd rather prefer to move it upfront. Otherwise, I'd have to consider >> that case for s390 as long as it remains in common. At least I'd have >> to make sure it does'nt get used on s390 using an if() or #ifdef. > > I agree, other archs shouldn't have to suffer.
So, now we move the whole thing(__kvm_set_memory_region) into arch ? :) Xiantao ------------------------------------------------------------------------- This SF.net email is sponsored by: Microsoft Defy all challenges. Microsoft(R) Visual Studio 2005. http://clk.atdmt.com/MRT/go/vse0120000070mrt/direct/01/ _______________________________________________ kvm-devel mailing list kvm-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/kvm-devel
