From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@redhat.com>
Subject: Re: KVM x86 emulator design question
Date: Sun, 19 Apr 2015 19:08:55 +0200
Message-ID: <5533E127.2050103@redhat.com>
References: <22C21C26-0572-4868-8C48-DF602DF360AD@gmail.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
To: Nadav Amit <nadav.amit@gmail.com>, kvm list <kvm@vger.kernel.org>
Return-path: <kvm-owner@vger.kernel.org>
Received: from mail-wi0-f170.google.com ([209.85.212.170]:36798 "EHLO
	mail-wi0-f170.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org
	with ESMTP id S1751838AbbDSRJA (ORCPT <rfc822;kvm@vger.kernel.org>);
	Sun, 19 Apr 2015 13:09:00 -0400
Received: by wizk4 with SMTP id k4so73399158wiz.1
        for <kvm@vger.kernel.org>; Sun, 19 Apr 2015 10:08:59 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <22C21C26-0572-4868-8C48-DF602DF360AD@gmail.com>
Sender: kvm-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-ID: <kvm.vger.kernel.org>



On 19/04/2015 15:16, Nadav Amit wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> I would appreciate if someone briefly explains the design choice that leaded
> to separating the x86 emulator from the rest of x86 code, i.e., making it
> oblivious to VCPUs and using the x86_emulate_ops as an interface.

I think the reason was to make it as easy as possible to use it in
usermode code, for example to write unit tests for it.

Paolo