Re: [PATCH 0 of 3] create kvm_x86

[Avi Kivity <avi-atKUWr5tajBWk0Htik3J/w@public.gmane.org>]

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 macro. Whole series:
> Acked-by: Carsten Otte <cotte-tA70FqPdS9bQT0dZR+AlfA@public.gmane.org>
>
>   

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;
        ...
    }

Where each arch defines its own kvm_arch.  Now the changes look like a
bunch of "kvm->blah" to "kvm->a.blah" conversions.

IIRC a downside was mentioned that it is easier to cause a build failure
for another arch now.

Opinions?  In theory correctness should win over style every time, no?

-- 
Do not meddle in the internals of kernels, for they are subtle and quick to panic.


-------------------------------------------------------------------------
This SF.net email is sponsored by: Microsoft
Defy all challenges. Microsoft(R) Visual Studio 2005.
http://clk.atdmt.com/MRT/go/vse0120000070mrt/direct/01/