On 07/16/2013 06:26:40 PM, Scott Wood wrote:
On 07/16/2013 06:21:51 PM, Alexander Graf wrote:
On 16.07.2013, at 00:23, Scott Wood wrote:
> Still, I'm not sure what sort of error you're thinking of. If the
guest didn't support the hcall mechanism we would have returned from
the function by that point. In fact, seeing kvm,has-reset on a
different hypervisor ought to mean that that hypervisor is emulating
KVM in this particular respect.
Imagine we're running on KVM with this reset hcall support. Now if
the guest has CONFIG_EPAPR_PARAVIRT enabled but CONFIG_KVM_GUEST
disabled, we would patch the callback, but kvm_hypercall0() would be
implemented as a nop.
Ugh -- that should be renamed epapr_hypercall and moved to
epapr_paravirt.c.
Or rather, kvm_hypercall() should become epapr_hypercall() in
epapr_paravirt.c -- there's nothing KVM-specific about it.
kvm_hypercall0() and friends could become epapr_hypercall0() in
epapr_hcalls.h, with the KVM_HCALL_TOKEN() moved to the caller. Or
they could stay as they are but depend on CONFIG_EPAPR_PARAVIRT rather
than CONFIG_KVM_GUEST -- there's no real dependency on the rest of the
KVM guest code.
-Scott
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe kvm" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
