>>
>> If you make this
>>
>> + union {
>> + struct kvm_vmx_data vmx[1];
>> +struct kvm_svm_data svm[1];
>> + };
>>
>> then we can later change it to a zero-sized array with variable-size
>> allocation, with no additional code changes.
>>
>
> Why do we want to make
Because zero sizing then 'over allocating' the struct on intel lets
you save space on svm, same extends obviously for other architectures
in future.
- Paul
On 6/25/07, Jun Koi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 6/26/07, Avi Kivity <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Paul Turner wrote:
> > > From: Paul Tu
On 6/26/07, Avi Kivity <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Paul Turner wrote:
> > From: Paul Turner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >
> > This just separates vmx/svm specific fields off kvm_vcpu into
> > kvm_vmx_data and kvm_svm_data fields respectively. Ideally these
> > should be compiled out depending on target
Paul Turner wrote:
> From: Paul Turner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> This just separates vmx/svm specific fields off kvm_vcpu into
> kvm_vmx_data and kvm_svm_data fields respectively. Ideally these
> should be compiled out depending on target architecture, at least the
> waste is organized now. I did
From: Paul Turner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
This just separates vmx/svm specific fields off kvm_vcpu into kvm_vmx_data
and kvm_svm_data fields respectively. Ideally these should be compiled
out depending on target architecture, at least the waste is organized now.
I didn't notice any svm specific fi
