Re: RFC/patch: a very trivial patch towards portability V2.1

[Avi Kivity <avi-atKUWr5tajBWk0Htik3J/w@public.gmane.org>]

Carsten Otte wrote:
> Christian Borntraeger pointed out that Avi requested to rename kvm_x86.c
> to x86.c. The patch below is the same as V2, but the files kvm_x86.[ch]
> have been renamed to x86.[ch], and the #includes have been updated.
>
> signed-off-by: Carsten Otte <cotte-tA70FqPdS9bQT0dZR+AlfA@public.gmane.org>
> ---
> Index: kvm/drivers/kvm/kvm.h
> ===================================================================
> --- kvm.orig/drivers/kvm/kvm.h	2007-10-10 12:42:21.000000000 +0200
> +++ kvm/drivers/kvm/kvm.h	2007-10-10 14:12:30.000000000 +0200
> @@ -653,6 +653,11 @@
>  
>  int kvm_fix_hypercall(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu);
>  
> +long kvm_arch_dev_ioctl(struct file *,
> +			unsigned int, unsigned long);
> +__init void kvm_arch_init(void);
> +long kvm_arch_check_extension(int);
>   

Argument names in prototypes please.

>  	case KVM_CHECK_EXTENSION: {
>  		int ext = (long)argp;
>  
> -		switch (ext) {
> -		case KVM_CAP_IRQCHIP:
> -		case KVM_CAP_HLT:
> -		case KVM_CAP_MMU_SHADOW_CACHE_CONTROL:
> -		case KVM_CAP_USER_MEMORY:
> -			r = 1;
> -			break;
> -		default:
> -			r = 0;
> -			break;
> -		}
> +		r = kvm_arch_check_extension(ext);
>  		break;
>
>   


Reflecting some more, do we want different API availablility for 
different archs?  We can make this generic, and ignore arch-specific 
extensions.

But on the other hand, things like KVM_CAP_IRQCHIP _are_ applicable to 
powerpc, but may not be implemented from day 1... should we do

case KVM_CAP_IRQCHIP:
    return KVM_ARCH_HAS_IRQCHIP;

?

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


-------------------------------------------------------------------------
This SF.net email is sponsored by: Splunk Inc.
Still grepping through log files to find problems?  Stop.
Now Search log events and configuration files using AJAX and a browser.
Download your FREE copy of Splunk now >> http://get.splunk.com/