From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Avi Kivity Date: Tue, 14 Dec 2010 08:40:57 +0000 Subject: Re: re-writing on powerpc Message-Id: <4D072D99.10002@redhat.com> List-Id: References: In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: kvm-ppc@vger.kernel.org On 12/13/2010 09:03 PM, Scott Wood wrote: > > > > The interface is a lot simpler. The guest decides what to patch and > > where to jump. A "please patch me" flag needs a ton of documentation on > > what patch means and what the constraints on the guest environment are. > > > > The constraints need to be documented, but I think "a ton" is a bit of > an exaggeration I guess. It's correct for x86 (which has four processor modes, and you need to consider segmentation, etc.), perhaps not so much for powerpc. > -- and having the guest do the patching itself means > that the structure of the shared page must become stable ABI. It has to be a stable ABI in any case so you can live migrate. Unless you want the hypervisor to unpatch or something. -- error compiling committee.c: too many arguments to function