From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Jeremy Fitzhardinge Subject: Re: [PATCH] Refactor hypercall infrastructure Date: Fri, 14 Sep 2007 14:52:58 -0700 Message-ID: <46EB02BA.6030909@goop.org> References: <11897991353793-git-send-email-aliguori@us.ibm.com> <46EAF4C6.8090903@goop.org> <46EAF6FC.80207@codemonkey.ws> <46EAFBA0.4020503@goop.org> <46EB0136.6080105@codemonkey.ws> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: kvm-devel-5NWGOfrQmneRv+LV9MX5uipxlwaOVQ5f@public.gmane.org, linux-kernel-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org, Avi Kivity To: Anthony Liguori Return-path: In-Reply-To: <46EB0136.6080105-rdkfGonbjUSkNkDKm+mE6A@public.gmane.org> 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 Anthony Liguori wrote: > Yeah, see, the initial goal was to make it possible to use the KVM > paravirtualizations on other hypervisors. However, I don't think this > is really going to be possible in general so maybe it's better to just > use leaf 0. I'll let others chime in before sending a new patch. Hm. Obviously you can just define a signature for "kvm-compatible hypercall interface" and make it common that way, but it gets tricky if the hypervisor supports multiple hypercall interfaces, including the kvm one. Start the kvm leaves at 0x40001000 or something? J ------------------------------------------------------------------------- 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/