From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Avi Kivity Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 2/4] KVM: Add unified KVM_GET/SET_VCPU_STATE IOCTL Date: Tue, 10 Nov 2009 15:31:29 +0200 Message-ID: <4AF96B31.5050104@redhat.com> References: <20091102162028.19049.34651.stgit@mchn012c.ww002.siemens.net> <20091102162028.19049.64564.stgit@mchn012c.ww002.siemens.net> <4AF93CFF.5080102@redhat.com> <4AF95691.70705@siemens.com> <4AF96342.4060205@redhat.com> <4AF96914.6010606@siemens.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: Marcelo Tosatti , "kvm@vger.kernel.org" To: Jan Kiszka Return-path: Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([209.132.183.28]:29333 "EHLO mx1.redhat.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1750864AbZKJNb2 (ORCPT ); Tue, 10 Nov 2009 08:31:28 -0500 In-Reply-To: <4AF96914.6010606@siemens.com> Sender: kvm-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On 11/10/2009 03:22 PM, Jan Kiszka wrote: > >> Since we have very few variable-size states, and their number is >> unlikely to increase, ad-hoc handling should be sufficient. >> > Regarding CPU states, there is actually only the MSR interface. > > cpuid internal states too. > So the new roadmap shall be like this: > > o Add KVM_X86_GET/SET_EVENT_STATES (instead of > KVM_X86_VCPU_STATE_EVENTS) > > o Refactor in-kernel VCPU state IOCTLs to use table-driven dispatching > and shared argument passing > > o Maybe refactor user space as well towards a table-driven state sync > (need to think about this a bit more) > > Any other comments or does everyone agree? > Looks good to me. These are all independent, of course. -- error compiling committee.c: too many arguments to function