Re: [kvm-ppc-devel] RFC/patch portability: split kvm_vm_ioctl v2

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

Avi Kivity wrote:
> Why aren't memory slots common too?  Only their number is different, 
> while the implementation is the same.
Your approach makes the meaning of memory slot somewhat useless on 
s390, if that one may be sparse and may be result of different 
allocations: On x86, there has to be one memory slot per allocation, 
versus on s390 there has to be exactly one memory slot with multiple 
allocations behind.

For userspace that means, with your approach it has to do total 
different memory setup for different archs _if_ it wants to use 
multiple allocations and/or sparse:
- on x86 it does allocations to random userspace address, and 
registers each of them as memory slot
- on s390 it does allocations to a specific address layout similar to 
the guest, and registers only one memory slot for the whole thing

With Izik's approach however, this is transparent to userspace: it has 
multiple memory slots, one per allocation. Regardless of the CPU 
architecture.

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