From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Avi Kivity <avi-atKUWr5tajBWk0Htik3J/w@public.gmane.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 10/13] KVM: Wire up hypercall handlers to a
 central arch-independent location
Date: Thu, 22 Feb 2007 12:37:37 +0200
Message-ID: <45DD7271.6000503@qumranet.com>
References: <45DD6CF0.3010509@qumranet.com>
	<64F9B87B6B770947A9F8391472E032160A91BAF3@ehost011-8.exch011.intermedia.net>
	<20070222102228.GC12801@amd.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Cc: kvm-devel-5NWGOfrQmneRv+LV9MX5uipxlwaOVQ5f@public.gmane.org, akpm-3NddpPZAyC0@public.gmane.org,
	Pavel Machek <pavel-+ZI9xUNit7I@public.gmane.org>, linux-kernel-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org
To: Joerg Roedel <joerg.roedel-5C7GfCeVMHo@public.gmane.org>
Return-path: <kvm-devel-bounces-5NWGOfrQmneRv+LV9MX5uipxlwaOVQ5f@public.gmane.org>
In-Reply-To: <20070222102228.GC12801-5C7GfCeVMHo@public.gmane.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/kvm-devel>,
	<mailto:kvm-devel-request-5NWGOfrQmneRv+LV9MX5uipxlwaOVQ5f@public.gmane.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://sourceforge.net/mailarchive/forum.php?forum=kvm-devel>
List-Post: <mailto:kvm-devel-5NWGOfrQmneRv+LV9MX5uipxlwaOVQ5f@public.gmane.org>
List-Help: <mailto:kvm-devel-request-5NWGOfrQmneRv+LV9MX5uipxlwaOVQ5f@public.gmane.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/kvm-devel>,
	<mailto:kvm-devel-request-5NWGOfrQmneRv+LV9MX5uipxlwaOVQ5f@public.gmane.org?subject=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

Joerg Roedel wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 22, 2007 at 02:17:54AM -0800, Dor Laor wrote:
>   
>> I have Ingo's network PV hypercalls to commit in my piplien.
>> Till then we can just add the test hypercall:
>> 	case __NR_hypercall_test:
>> 		printk(KERN_DEBUG "%s __NR_hypercall_test\n",
>> __FUNCTION__);
>> 		ret = 0x5a5a;
>> 		break;
>> 	default:
>> 		BUG();
>>     
>
> Is it a good idea to call BUG() on an undefined hypercall? I assume its
> better to inform the guest that is has issued an illegal call...
>
>   

The code returns -KVM_EINVAL if the hypercall is not handled (and BUG() 
on the host as a response to something controlled by a guest is not a 
good idea).


-- 
error compiling committee.c: too many arguments to function


-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Take Surveys. Earn Cash. Influence the Future of IT
Join SourceForge.net's Techsay panel and you'll get the chance to share your
opinions on IT & business topics through brief surveys-and earn cash
http://www.techsay.com/default.php?page=join.php&p=sourceforge&CID=DEVDEV