On Tue, 2008-02-05 at 12:05 -0600, Anthony Liguori wrote: > > Hollis Blanchard wrote: > > If it's the "ioctl" in the function name you object to, that's > easily > > changed. > > > > It's not the name, it's what you're doing. You're introducing an > architecture specific ioctl that essentially overrides an > common-ioctl().
No, I am introducing an architecture-specific ioctl that shares common code, which after all is the goal. > If anything, I would think it would be better to expand the existing > common-ioctl with the notion and then have a > per-architecture hook within that ioctl. I *am* expanding the common ioctl. I am also preserving the existing ABI: CREATE_VCPU still works, and CREATE_VCPU_TYPE is the new ioctl. And then, voila, we have an architecture-specific hook: kvm_arch_vcpu_create(). I will happily move the KVM_CREATE_VCPU_TYPE case from kvm_arch_vm_ioctl() to kvm_vm_ioctl(), and since the additional parameter is necessarily architecture-specific, it will simply call kvm_arch_vcpu_create_type(). -- Hollis Blanchard IBM Linux Technology Center ------------------------------------------------------------------------- This SF.net email is sponsored by: Microsoft Defy all challenges. Microsoft(R) Visual Studio 2008. 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
