Glauber Costa wrote: > Hi. This is a proposal for reducing the impact of kvm functions in core qemu > code. This is by all means not ready, but I felt like posting it, so a > discussion > on it could follow. > > The idea in this patch is to replace the specific kvm details from core qemu > files > like vl.c, with driver_yyy() functions. When kvm is not running, those > functions would > just return (most of time), absolutely reducing the impact of kvm code. > > As I wanted to test it, in this patch I changed the kvm functions to be > called driver_yyy(), > but that's not my final goal. I intend to use a function pointer schema, > similar to what the linux > kernel already do for a lot of its subsystem, to isolate the changes. > > Comments deeply welcome. >
While I would be very annoyed if someone referred to kvm as a qemu accelerator, I think accelerator_yyy() is more descriptive than driver_yyy(). I did not see any references to kqemu, but I imagine you mean this to abstract kqemu support as well. Other than that, looks really good. -- Any sufficiently difficult bug is indistinguishable from a feature. ------------------------------------------------------------------------- This SF.net email is sponsored by the 2008 JavaOne(SM) Conference Don't miss this year's exciting event. There's still time to save $100. Use priority code J8TL2D2. http://ad.doubleclick.net/clk;198757673;13503038;p?http://java.sun.com/javaone _______________________________________________ kvm-devel mailing list kvm-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/kvm-devel
