From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Jerone Young Subject: Re: [kvm-ppc-devel] [PATCH] Add powerpc dcr callbacks to kvm callback structrure Date: Wed, 02 Jan 2008 14:54:02 -0600 Message-ID: <1199307243.21895.2.camel@thinkpad> References: <1199306854.15953.16.camel@basalt> Reply-To: jyoung5-r/Jw6+rmf7HQT0dZR+AlfA@public.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: kvm-devel-5NWGOfrQmneRv+LV9MX5uipxlwaOVQ5f@public.gmane.org, kvm-ppc-devel-5NWGOfrQmneRv+LV9MX5uipxlwaOVQ5f@public.gmane.org To: Hollis Blanchard Return-path: In-Reply-To: <1199306854.15953.16.camel@basalt> List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: kvm-devel-bounces-5NWGOfrQmneRv+LV9MX5uipxlwaOVQ5f@public.gmane.org Errors-To: kvm-devel-bounces-5NWGOfrQmneRv+LV9MX5uipxlwaOVQ5f@public.gmane.org List-Id: kvm.vger.kernel.org That would be my sketchy idea. Though I was going to wait and see what the feedback would be doing this :-) It can go either way. Since it's just callbacks it really doesn't matter. But it does affect the structure size never the less. So what are everyone thoughs about arch specific callbacks ? On Wed, 2008-01-02 at 14:47 -0600, Hollis Blanchard wrote: > What is the plan here, to ifdef the arch-specific callbacks? If so, > 'tpr_access' is an obvious candidate... > ------------------------------------------------------------------------- This SF.net email is sponsored by: Microsoft Defy all challenges. Microsoft(R) Visual Studio 2005. http://clk.atdmt.com/MRT/go/vse0120000070mrt/direct/01/