Avi Kivity wrote:
> On 03/08/2010 03:51 PM, Alexander Graf wrote:
>> Avi Kivity wrote:
>>
>>> On 03/05/2010 06:50 PM, Alexander Graf wrote:
>>>
>>>> }
>>>> diff --git a/include/linux/kvm.h b/include/linux/kvm.h
>>>> index ce28767..c7ed3cb 100644
>>>> --- a/include/linux/kvm.h
>>>> +++ b/include/linux/kvm.h
>>>> @@ -400,6 +400,12 @@ struct kvm_ioeventfd {
>>>> __u8 pad[36];
>>>> };
>>>>
>>>> +/* for KVM_ENABLE_CAP */
>>>> +struct kvm_enable_cap {
>>>> + /* in */
>>>> + __u32 cap;
>>>>
>>>>
>>> Reserve space here. Add a flags field and check it for zeros.
>>>
>> Flags? How about something like
>>
>> u64 args[4]
>>
>> That way the capability enabling code could decide what to do with the
>> arguments. We don't always only need flags I suppose?.
>>
>
> If you interpret these as bit flags anyway, that would be redundant.
>
I think I just don't understand what you're trying to say with "flags".
For the OSI enabling we don't need any flags. For later additions we
don't know what we'll need.
Alex
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe kvm-ppc" in
the body of a message to [email protected]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
