From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Jan Kiszka Subject: Re: [PATCH] KVM: x86: Extend KVM_SET_VCPU_EVENTS with selective updates Date: Sun, 06 Dec 2009 18:12:45 +0100 Message-ID: <4B1BE60D.5070107@web.de> References: <4B1BE216.2090407@web.de> <4B1BE452.6090107@redhat.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha1; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="------------enig7A3CC1666B0D04BF68C7DD31" Cc: Marcelo Tosatti , kvm , Gleb Natapov To: Avi Kivity Return-path: Received: from fmmailgate03.web.de ([217.72.192.234]:60118 "EHLO fmmailgate03.web.de" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S933947AbZLFRWb (ORCPT ); Sun, 6 Dec 2009 12:22:31 -0500 In-Reply-To: <4B1BE452.6090107@redhat.com> Sender: kvm-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: This is an OpenPGP/MIME signed message (RFC 2440 and 3156) --------------enig7A3CC1666B0D04BF68C7DD31 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-15 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Avi Kivity wrote: > On 12/06/2009 06:55 PM, Jan Kiszka wrote: >> User space may not want to overwrite asynchronously changing VCPU even= t >> states on write-back. So allow to skip nmi.pending and sipi_vector by >> setting corresponding bits in the flags field of kvm_vcpu_events. >> =20 >=20 > I think a positive flag (do update nmi and sipi_vector) will cause less= > confusion, no? If we do that, we'll need to set them on > KVM_GET_VCPU_EVENTS. I'm fine with the former but I don't understand the latter. Jan --------------enig7A3CC1666B0D04BF68C7DD31 Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc" Content-Description: OpenPGP digital signature Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="signature.asc" -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2.0.9 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with SUSE - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iEYEARECAAYFAksb5g0ACgkQitSsb3rl5xRPbACfdY50USdnuZ4n1srCBw/92GUV t8MAoL02LOuxL/sbeFg94V5pGwTOpNZx =WMiO -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --------------enig7A3CC1666B0D04BF68C7DD31--