* Gregory Haskins ([email protected]) wrote: > So you would never have someone making a generic > hypercall(KVM_HC_MMU_OP). I agree.
Which is why I think the interface proposal you've made is wrong. There's already hypercall interfaces w/ specific ABI and semantic meaning (which are typically called directly/indirectly from an existing pv op hook). But a free-form hypercall(unsigned long nr, unsigned long *args, size_t count) means hypercall number and arg list must be the same in order for code to call hypercall() in a hypervisor agnostic way. The pv_ops level need to have semantic meaning, not a free form hypercall multiplexor. thanks, -chris -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe kvm" in the body of a message to [email protected] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
