[PATCH 1/2] KVM: Add KVM_EXIT_RESET to user space API header

[christoffer.dall@linaro.org (Christoffer Dall)]

On Tue, Dec 10, 2013 at 03:13:34AM +0100, Alexander Graf wrote:
> 
> On 25.11.2013, at 16:49, Anup Patel <anup.patel@linaro.org> wrote:
> 
> > Currently, we don't have an exit reason for VM reset emulation
> > in user space hence this patch adds exit reason KVM_EXIT_RESET
> > for this purpose.
> > 
> > This newly added KVM_EXIT_RESET will be used by KVM arm/arm64
> > in-kernel PSCI support to reset VMs.
> > 
> > Signed-off-by: Anup Patel <anup.patel@linaro.org>
> > Signed-off-by: Pranavkumar Sawargaonkar <pranavkumar@linaro.org>
> > ---
> > include/uapi/linux/kvm.h |    1 +
> > 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+)
> > 
> > diff --git a/include/uapi/linux/kvm.h b/include/uapi/linux/kvm.h
> > index 902f124..64a04cc 100644
> > --- a/include/uapi/linux/kvm.h
> > +++ b/include/uapi/linux/kvm.h
> > @@ -171,6 +171,7 @@ struct kvm_pit_config {
> > #define KVM_EXIT_WATCHDOG         21
> > #define KVM_EXIT_S390_TSCH        22
> > #define KVM_EXIT_EPR              23
> > +#define KVM_EXIT_RESET            24
> 
> I have to admit that I'm not particularly happy with the exit name. It's not obvious from the name under which circumstances it gets triggered. Does it get triggered when a core level reset happens? Does it get triggered when a system level reset happened? When the guest requests one?
> 
> I know what it does, but I find the name too generic for what it is. What you're really doing is introduce a new communication channel in parallel to MMIO / PIO / HCALL which is only used for system level reset / shutdown today.
> 
> Can we treat it as such? Could you please make this a common exit number that's called something like
> 
>   KVM_EXIT_SYSTEM_EVENT
> 
> with a parameter that can either be TRIGGER_SHUTDOWN or TRIGGER_RESET.
> 
> That way it's obvious what's going on and people don't get confused.
> 
I didn't realize what the KVM_EXIT_SHUTDOWN really was, thanks for
explaining that.  In that case, the SYSTEM_EVENT sounds good to me.

How do you propose the parameter gets passed?  As a new struct to the
untion in kvm_run ?

-Christoffer