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

[Carsten Otte <cotte-tA70FqPdS9bQT0dZR+AlfA@public.gmane.org>]

Avi Kivity wrote:
> Argument names in prototypes please.
Will do that.

>>  	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;
> 
> ?
Will do that too.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------
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/