From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@redhat.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 1/4] KVM: x86: INIT and reset sequences are different
Date: Tue, 07 Apr 2015 18:22:17 +0200
Message-ID: <55240439.4060103@redhat.com>
References: <1427933438-12782-1-git-send-email-namit@cs.technion.ac.il>	<1427933438-12782-2-git-send-email-namit@cs.technion.ac.il>	<jpg619f1dfx.fsf@redhat.com> <5523DA6F.1050905@redhat.com> <jpgmw2j6hhc.fsf@redhat.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Cc: Nadav Amit <namit@cs.technion.ac.il>, kvm@vger.kernel.org
To: Bandan Das <bsd@redhat.com>
Return-path: <kvm-owner@vger.kernel.org>
Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([209.132.183.28]:40221 "EHLO mx1.redhat.com"
	rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP
	id S1753910AbbDGQWY (ORCPT <rfc822;kvm@vger.kernel.org>);
	Tue, 7 Apr 2015 12:22:24 -0400
In-Reply-To: <jpgmw2j6hhc.fsf@redhat.com>
Sender: kvm-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-ID: <kvm.vger.kernel.org>



On 07/04/2015 18:17, Bandan Das wrote:
> > I think a bool argument is good enough.  QEMU has different functions,
> > and init ends up doing save/reset/restore which is pretty ugly.
> 
> Right, I meant that init could just be a wrapper so that it atleast shows up in
> a backtrace - could be helpful for debugging.

I suspect that the compiler would inline any sensible implementation and
it wouldn't show up in the backtraces. :(

Paolo