Avi Kivity wrote: > On 12/06/2009 07:12 PM, Jan Kiszka wrote: >> Avi Kivity wrote: >> >>> On 12/06/2009 06:55 PM, Jan Kiszka wrote: >>> >>>> User space may not want to overwrite asynchronously changing VCPU event >>>> states on write-back. So allow to skip nmi.pending and sipi_vector by >>>> setting corresponding bits in the flags field of kvm_vcpu_events. >>>> >>>> >>> I think a positive flag (do update nmi and sipi_vector) will cause less >>> confusion, no? If we do that, we'll need to set them on >>> KVM_GET_VCPU_EVENTS. >>> >> I'm fine with the former but I don't understand the latter. >> >> > > What I meant was the on KVM_GET_VCPU_EVENTS, the two flags should be > set. This way, the meaning of the flags is identical on both: the > associated field contains valid data. > > I made this change to your v2 and applied and queued for .33. Please > review (in next) to make sure it makes sense. >
OK, but calling these bits "SET" makes no sense anymore. What about KVM_VCPUEVENT_VALID_*? Jan
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
