From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Jes Sorensen Date: Wed, 10 Dec 2008 08:39:01 +0000 Subject: Re: [patch] fix kvm_arch_vcpu_ioctl_[gs]et_regs() Message-Id: <493F8025.9060705@sgi.com> List-Id: References: <493E906C.8030800@sgi.com> In-Reply-To: <493E906C.8030800@sgi.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: kvm-ia64@vger.kernel.org Zhang, Xiantao wrote: > Jes Sorensen wrote: >> I am with Avi on this one - we shouldn't be passing in pointers like >> that. Either we can increase the size of kvm_regs as you mention, but >> it will become *huge* since the stack is 64KB, or we introduce a new >> ioctl just to handle the stack. >> >> Do you think it would be a problem having the second ioctl for this? I >> would prefer breaking it into two to avoid the kernel having to >> allocate a 128KB chunk for kvm_regs. > > Fine to me to add the ioctl, and it should make the logic clear. > Xiantao Cool, I'll look into that later today, I hope. I'll base it on your old code, but I will not be able to test it :-) Cheers, Jes