From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Marcelo Tosatti <marcelo@kvack.org>
Subject: Re: [patch 1/5] KVM: add basic paravirt support (v2)
Date: Thu, 21 Feb 2008 12:55:31 -0300
Message-ID: <20080221155530.GA30590@dmt>
References: <20080220194720.750258362@harmony.lab.boston.redhat.com>
	<20080220195019.552114916@harmony.lab.boston.redhat.com>
	<47BD9AF6.7020206@qumranet.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Cc: kvm-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
To: Avi Kivity <avi@qumranet.com>
Return-path: <kvm-devel-bounces@lists.sourceforge.net>
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <47BD9AF6.7020206@qumranet.com>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/kvm-devel>,
	<mailto:kvm-devel-request@lists.sourceforge.net?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://sourceforge.net/mailarchive/forum.php?forum_name=kvm-devel>
List-Post: <mailto:kvm-devel@lists.sourceforge.net>
List-Help: <mailto:kvm-devel-request@lists.sourceforge.net?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/kvm-devel>,
	<mailto:kvm-devel-request@lists.sourceforge.net?subject=subscribe>
Sender: kvm-devel-bounces@lists.sourceforge.net
Errors-To: kvm-devel-bounces@lists.sourceforge.net
List-Id: kvm.vger.kernel.org

On Thu, Feb 21, 2008 at 05:38:30PM +0200, Avi Kivity wrote:
> Marcelo Tosatti wrote:
> >Add basic KVM paravirt support. Avoid vm-exits on IO delays.
> >
> >Add KVM_GET_PARA_FEATURES ioctl so paravirt features can be reported in a
> >single bitmask. This allows the host to disable features on runtime if 
> >appropriate, which would require one ioctl per feature otherwise.
> >
> >The limit of 32 features can be extended to 64 if needed, beyond that a 
> >new MSR is required.
> >
> >v1->v2:
> >- replace KVM_CAP_CLOCKSOURCE with KVM_CAP_PARA_FEATURES
> >- cover FEATURE_CLOCKSOURCE
> >
> >
> >  
> 
> I don't understand the motivation for this.  A handful of ioctl()s at 
> init time are hardly time consuming.
> 
> There is the advantage that paravirt kernel advances are reflected 
> automatically without changes in userspace, but sometimes this is a 
> disadvantage (it means there is no way to disable it, for instance).

One ioctl per feature sounded like unnecessary code duplication. I have
no problems with it though. So you prefer that way?

-------------------------------------------------------------------------
This SF.net email is sponsored by: Microsoft
Defy all challenges. Microsoft(R) Visual Studio 2008.
http://clk.atdmt.com/MRT/go/vse0120000070mrt/direct/01/