On 23/03/20 17:24, Vitaly Kuznetsov wrote:
> Sounds cool! (not sure that with only two implementations people won't
> call it 'over-engineered' but cool).
Yes, something like
#define KVM_X86_OP(name) .name = vmx_##name
(svm_##name for svm.c) and then
KVM_X86_OP(check_nested_events)
etc.
> My personal wish would just be that
> function names in function implementations are not auto-generated so
> e.g. a simple 'git grep vmx_hardware_setup' works
Yes, absolutely; the function names would still be written by hand.
Paolo
> but the way how we
> fill vmx_x86_ops in can be macroed I guess.
_______________________________________________
kvmarm mailing list
kvmarm@lists.cs.columbia.edu
https://lists.cs.columbia.edu/mailman/listinfo/kvmarm
