Davide Libenzi wrote:
On Thu, 17 May 2007, Avi Kivity wrote:
Davide Libenzi wrote:
On Wed, 16 May 2007, Avi Kivity wrote:
IMO doing eventfd_fget() asap is best. I much prefer refcounted pointers
to
handles in the kernel: it's easier to see what things point to, and
Davide Libenzi wrote:
On Wed, 16 May 2007, Avi Kivity wrote:
IMO doing eventfd_fget() asap is best. I much prefer refcounted pointers to
handles in the kernel: it's easier to see what things point to, and there is
to context needed for dereferencing.
There are concerns (from Al
On Thu, 17 May 2007, Avi Kivity wrote:
Davide Libenzi wrote:
On Wed, 16 May 2007, Avi Kivity wrote:
IMO doing eventfd_fget() asap is best. I much prefer refcounted pointers
to
handles in the kernel: it's easier to see what things point to, and there
is
to context needed
On Thu, 17 May 2007, Davide Libenzi wrote:
/* Your eventfd create/setup function (modulo error checks) */
void setup_eventfd(struct your_ctx *c) {
int fd;
c-rcb.proc = rcb_callback;
fd = eventfd_create(0, c-rcb);
c-evfile = eventfd_fget(fd);
+
Gregory Haskins wrote:
On Tue, May 15, 2007 at 3:45 AM, in message [EMAIL PROTECTED],
Avi Kivity [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Gregory Haskins wrote:
Signed- off- by: Gregory Haskins [EMAIL PROTECTED]
---
drivers/kvm/kvm.h |1 +
drivers/kvm/kvm_main.c | 52
Davide Libenzi wrote:
On Tue, 15 May 2007, Gregory Haskins wrote:
On Tue, May 15, 2007 at 3:45 AM, in message [EMAIL PROTECTED],
Avi Kivity [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Gregory Haskins wrote:
Signed- off- by: Gregory Haskins [EMAIL PROTECTED]
---
Anthony Liguori wrote:
Gregory Haskins wrote:
While KVM will inevitably start requiring newer kernel versions, do we
really need to do it right now? Perhaps we could add dummy eventfd_*
functions to the module compat header? Then at least older kernels will
continue to work with in-
Davide Libenzi wrote:
On Tue, 15 May 2007, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
On Tue, May 15, 2007 at 12:18:17PM -0400, Gregory Haskins wrote:
On Tue, May 15, 2007 at 11:40 AM, in message
[EMAIL PROTECTED], Davide Libenzi
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I don't know how
On Wed, 16 May 2007, Avi Kivity wrote:
IMO doing eventfd_fget() asap is best. I much prefer refcounted pointers to
handles in the kernel: it's easier to see what things point to, and there is
to context needed for dereferencing.
There are concerns (from Al and Christoph) about file lifetime
Signed-off-by: Gregory Haskins [EMAIL PROTECTED]
---
drivers/kvm/kvm.h |1 +
drivers/kvm/kvm_main.c | 55 +++-
include/linux/kvm.h|1 +
3 files changed, 51 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-)
diff --git a/drivers/kvm/kvm.h
On Tue, 15 May 2007, Gregory Haskins wrote:
On Tue, May 15, 2007 at 3:45 AM, in message [EMAIL PROTECTED],
Avi Kivity [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Gregory Haskins wrote:
Signed- off- by: Gregory Haskins [EMAIL PROTECTED]
---
drivers/kvm/kvm.h |1 +
drivers/kvm/kvm_main.c |
On Tue, May 15, 2007 at 11:40 AM, in message
[EMAIL PROTECTED], Davide Libenzi
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I don't know how critical is the path where you will be doing check. The
eventfd_fget() is pretty fast, so if you're not looking at a performance
critical path, I'd suggest that.
On Tue, May 15, 2007 at 12:18:17PM -0400, Gregory Haskins wrote:
On Tue, May 15, 2007 at 11:40 AM, in message
[EMAIL PROTECTED], Davide Libenzi
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I don't know how critical is the path where you will be doing check. The
eventfd_fget() is pretty fast, so if you're
On Tue, May 15, 2007 at 12:22 PM, in message
[EMAIL PROTECTED], Christoph Hellwig [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
On Tue, May 15, 2007 at 12:18:17PM - 0400, Gregory Haskins wrote:
On Tue, May 15, 2007 at 11:40 AM, in message
[EMAIL PROTECTED], Davide Libenzi
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I don't
This patch series depends on eventfd which means that KVM now requires
2.6.22-rc1.
While KVM will inevitably start requiring newer kernel versions, do we
really need to do it right now? Perhaps we could add dummy eventfd_*
functions to the module compat header? Then at least older kernels
On Tue, May 15, 2007 at 12:39 PM, in message [EMAIL PROTECTED],
Anthony Liguori [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
This patch series depends on eventfd which means that KVM now requires
2.6.22- rc1.
This is understood.
While KVM will inevitably start requiring newer kernel versions, do we
really
On Tue, 15 May 2007, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
On Tue, May 15, 2007 at 12:18:17PM -0400, Gregory Haskins wrote:
On Tue, May 15, 2007 at 11:40 AM, in message
[EMAIL PROTECTED], Davide Libenzi
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I don't know how critical is the path where you will be doing
Gregory Haskins wrote:
While KVM will inevitably start requiring newer kernel versions, do we
really need to do it right now? Perhaps we could add dummy eventfd_*
functions to the module compat header? Then at least older kernels will
continue to work with in- kernel APIC disabled.
Signed-off-by: Gregory Haskins [EMAIL PROTECTED]
---
drivers/kvm/kvm.h |1 +
drivers/kvm/kvm_main.c | 52 ++--
include/linux/kvm.h|1 +
3 files changed, 48 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-)
diff --git a/drivers/kvm/kvm.h
Signed-off-by: Gregory Haskins [EMAIL PROTECTED]
---
drivers/kvm/kvm.h |2 +
drivers/kvm/kvm_main.c | 82
2 files changed, 84 insertions(+), 0 deletions(-)
diff --git a/drivers/kvm/kvm.h b/drivers/kvm/kvm.h
index 0f6cc32..b5bfc91
20 matches
Mail list logo
