Re: [kvm-ppc-devel] [kvm-devel] [PATCH 0 of 3] RFC: creating a

[Anthony Liguori <aliguori@us.ibm.com>]

Hollis Blanchard wrote:
>> If anything, I would think it would be better to expand the existing
>> common-ioctl with the notion and then have a 
>> per-architecture hook within that ioctl.
>>     
>
> I *am* expanding the common ioctl. I am also preserving the existing
> ABI: CREATE_VCPU still works, and CREATE_VCPU_TYPE is the new ioctl. And
> then, voila, we have an architecture-specific hook:
> kvm_arch_vcpu_create().
>
> I will happily move the KVM_CREATE_VCPU_TYPE case from
> kvm_arch_vm_ioctl() to kvm_vm_ioctl(), and since the additional
> parameter is necessarily architecture-specific, it will simply call
> kvm_arch_vcpu_create_type().
>   

So the new ioctl() has the extra data and the old ioctl() is just a 
compat interface which calls the new ioctl with a NULL extra data.  I 
think this is the better approach if you're going this route.

However, I still don't think that supporting asymmetric cores is really 
useful at the moment and that introducing a per-vm arch ioctl would be 
the best approach.

Regards,

Anthony Liguori


-------------------------------------------------------------------------
This SF.net email is sponsored by: Microsoft
Defy all challenges. Microsoft(R) Visual Studio 2008.
http://clk.atdmt.com/MRT/go/vse0120000070mrt/direct/01/
_______________________________________________
kvm-ppc-devel mailing list
kvm-ppc-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/kvm-ppc-devel