Hollis Blanchard wrote: >> 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(). >
So the new ioctl() has the extra data and the old ioctl() is just a compat interface which calls the new ioctl with a NULL extra data. I think this is the better approach if you're going this route. However, I still don't think that supporting asymmetric cores is really useful at the moment and that introducing a per-vm arch ioctl would be the best approach. Regards, Anthony Liguori ------------------------------------------------------------------------- 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
