Avi Kivity wrote: > 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(). How about booster? ;-)
> I did not see any references to kqemu, but I imagine you mean this to > abstract kqemu support as well. Yeah, even the kvm part is not complete. As I said, just wanted to get it going. > > Other than that, looks really good. > thanks ------------------------------------------------------------------------- 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
