Re: [PATCH v2] KVM: x86: Extend KVM_SET_VCPU_EVENTS with selective updates

[Avi Kivity <avi@redhat.com>]

On 12/15/2009 06:43 PM, Jan Kiszka wrote:
>
>> I now agree.  But instead of SCOPE_RESET and SCOPE_RUNTIME (or whatever
>> that was), how about SCOPE_GPR, SCOPE_FPU, SCOPE_SREGS etc.  That means
>> the backing code in kvm.c doesn't have to know what qemu is interested
>> in wrt SCOPE_RESET, and it's easier for readers to infer what is meant.
>>      
> That's not my idea. I want to be able to state the scope in generic,
> arch-independent, KVM-unaware code. What the scope actually means /wrt
> writeback should only be defined in the arch-specific kvm service
> implementing it. Your suggestion would go in the wrong direction IMO.
>    

What I'm worried is how to tell which registers go in which scope?  And 
contrariwise, when doing a cpu_synchronize_state(), how to select the 
scope?  It's easy when there's just normal and reset, but what happens 
when we gain another one?  The code may not know who calls it.

-- 
error compiling committee.c: too many arguments to function