Hollis Blanchard wrote:
> I hope to have multiple kvm-ppc-XXX.ko modules loaded simultaneously to
> support different guest types on the same host. I haven't yet figured
> out what that interface should look like, but obviously linking is
> preferable to function pointers where feasible.
>
At l
Hollis Blanchard wrote:
>>
>> These cannot use the same method, since we need to support both vmx and
>> svm in the same binary. The arch specific members aren't the same size,
>> nor do the symbols they use have the same visibility.
>>
>
> I have never understood this. Why on earth do you ne
On Fri, 2007-11-30 at 15:43 -0600, Anthony Liguori wrote:
> Hollis Blanchard wrote:
> > On Fri, 2007-11-30 at 22:31 +0200, Avi Kivity wrote:
> >
> >> These cannot use the same method, since we need to support both vmx and
> >> svm in the same binary. The arch specific members aren't the same
Hollis Blanchard wrote:
> On Fri, 2007-11-30 at 22:31 +0200, Avi Kivity wrote:
>
>> Hollis Blanchard wrote:
>>
>>> On Fri, 2007-11-30 at 11:04 +0200, Avi Kivity wrote:
>>>
>>>
Zhang, Xiantao wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
On Fri, 2007-11-30 at 22:31 +0200, Avi Kivity wrote:
> Hollis Blanchard wrote:
> > On Fri, 2007-11-30 at 11:04 +0200, Avi Kivity wrote:
> >
> >> Zhang, Xiantao wrote:
> >>
> >
> >
> The nicer one:
>
> struct kvm {
> struct kvm_arch a
Hollis Blanchard wrote:
> On Fri, 2007-11-30 at 11:04 +0200, Avi Kivity wrote:
>
>> Zhang, Xiantao wrote:
>>
>
>
The nicer one:
struct kvm {
struct kvm_arch arch;
// common fields
}
>>> I p
On Fri, 2007-11-30 at 11:04 +0200, Avi Kivity wrote:
> Zhang, Xiantao wrote:
> >
> >>>
> >> The nicer one:
> >>
> >>struct kvm {
> >> struct kvm_arch arch;
> >> // common fields
> >>}
> >>
> >
> > I prefer this one, seems it is more direct and readable. Same thin
Avi Kivity wrote:
> Zhang, Xiantao wrote:
>>
>>> The nicer one:
>>>
>>>struct kvm {
>>> struct kvm_arch arch;
>>> // common fields
>>>}
>>>
>>
>> I prefer this one, seems it is more direct and readable. Same
>> thinking about kvm_vcpu structure:)
>>
>
> I agree,
Zhang, Xiantao wrote:
>
>>>
>> The nicer one:
>>
>>struct kvm {
>> struct kvm_arch arch;
>> // common fields
>>}
>>
>
> I prefer this one, seems it is more direct and readable. Same thinking
> about kvm_vcpu structure:)
>
I agree, kvm_vcpu should use the same
Avi Kivity wrote:
> Hollis Blanchard wrote:
>> On Wed, 2007-11-21 at 11:18 +0200, Avi Kivity wrote:
>>> Well, I hate to say it, but the resulting code doesn't look too well
>>> (all the kvm_x86 variables), and it's entirely my fault as I
>>> recommended this approach. Not like it was diffic
Hollis Blanchard wrote:
> On Wed, 2007-11-21 at 11:18 +0200, Avi Kivity wrote:
>
>> Carsten Otte wrote:
>>
>>> Hollis Blanchard wrote:
>>>
>>>
These patches are based on Xiantao's work to create struct kvm_x86. Patch
1 replaces his "KVM Portability split: Splitting kvm
On Wed, 2007-11-21 at 11:18 +0200, Avi Kivity wrote:
> Carsten Otte wrote:
> > Hollis Blanchard wrote:
> >
> >> These patches are based on Xiantao's work to create struct kvm_x86. Patch
> >> 1 replaces his "KVM Portability split: Splitting kvm structure (V2)", and
> >> patches 2 and 3 build on
Zhang, Xiantao wrote:
>> IIRC a downside was mentioned that it is easier to cause a build
>> failure for another arch now.
>>
>
> I can't figure out why it can cause more build failure.
>
Nothing stops you from doing kvm->arch.blah in kvm_main.c, but blah will
not be present for all archi
Avi Kivity wrote:
> Carsten Otte wrote:
>> Hollis Blanchard wrote:
>>
>>> These patches are based on Xiantao's work to create struct kvm_x86.
>>> Patch 1 replaces his "KVM Portability split: Splitting kvm
>>> structure (V2)", and patches 2 and 3 build on it.
>>>
>> Looks like a clean approach w
Avi Kivity wrote:
> Well, I hate to say it, but the resulting code doesn't look too well
> (all the kvm_x86 variables), and it's entirely my fault as I recommended
> this approach. Not like it was difficult to predict.
>
> I'm thinking again of
>
> struct kvm {
> struct kvm_arch a;
>
* Avi Kivity wrote:
> Carsten Otte wrote:
> > Hollis Blanchard wrote:
> >> These patches are based on Xiantao's work to create struct kvm_x86.
> >> Patch 1 replaces his "KVM Portability split: Splitting kvm structure
> >> (V2)", and patches 2 and 3 build on it.
> >
> > Looks like a clean approach w
Carsten Otte wrote:
> Hollis Blanchard wrote:
>
>> These patches are based on Xiantao's work to create struct kvm_x86. Patch 1
>> replaces his "KVM Portability split: Splitting kvm structure (V2)", and
>> patches 2 and 3 build on it.
>>
> Looks like a clean approach with to to_kvm_x86 mac
Hollis Blanchard wrote:
> These patches are based on Xiantao's work to create struct kvm_x86. Patch 1
> replaces his "KVM Portability split: Splitting kvm structure (V2)", and
> patches 2 and 3 build on it.
Looks like a clean approach with to to_kvm_x86 macro. Whole series:
Acked-by: Carsten Otte
18 matches
Mail list logo
