Carsten Otte wrote:
> Hollis Blanchard wrote:
>
>> These patches are based on Xiantao's work to create struct kvm_x86. Patch 1
>> replaces his "KVM Portability split: Splitting kvm structure (V2)", and
>> patches 2 and 3 build on it.
>>
> Looks like a clean approach with to to_kvm_x86 macro. Whole series:
> Acked-by: Carsten Otte <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
>
Well, I hate to say it, but the resulting code doesn't look too well
(all the kvm_x86 variables), and it's entirely my fault as I recommended
this approach. Not like it was difficult to predict.
I'm thinking again of
struct kvm {
struct kvm_arch a;
...
}
Where each arch defines its own kvm_arch. Now the changes look like a
bunch of "kvm->blah" to "kvm->a.blah" conversions.
IIRC a downside was mentioned that it is easier to cause a build failure
for another arch now.
Opinions? In theory correctness should win over style every time, no?
--
Do not meddle in the internals of kernels, for they are subtle and quick to
panic.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
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
