From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Anthony Liguori Subject: Re: [kvm-ppc-devel] [PATCH 1 of 3] Move x86 kvmcallback structure tokvmctl-x86.h header Date: Sun, 28 Oct 2007 22:53:32 -0500 Message-ID: <4725593C.7050005@codemonkey.ws> References: <3bf072e498768885ab96.1193618567@thinkpad> <42DFA526FC41B1429CE7279EF83C6BDC8B51E0@pdsmsx415.ccr.corp.intel.com> <1193623464.17368.1.camel@basalt> <472542B8.9070105@codemonkey.ws> <42DFA526FC41B1429CE7279EF83C6BDC8B5292@pdsmsx415.ccr.corp.intel.com> <1193626857.17368.41.camel@basalt> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: kvm-devel-5NWGOfrQmneRv+LV9MX5uipxlwaOVQ5f@public.gmane.org, kvm-ppc-devel-5NWGOfrQmneRv+LV9MX5uipxlwaOVQ5f@public.gmane.org, Jerone Young , "Zhang, Xiantao" To: Hollis Blanchard Return-path: In-Reply-To: <1193626857.17368.41.camel@basalt> 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 Hollis Blanchard wrote: > On Mon, 2007-10-29 at 10:41 +0800, Zhang, Xiantao wrote: > >> Anthony Liguori wrote: >> >>> Hollis Blanchard wrote: >>> >>>>> I don't know the privious story about this thread, but now I can't >>>>> understand the move. Why do we move all the structure to >>>>> arch-specific ? For IA64 side, almostly we can reuse them directly, >>>>> and just see some special fields as arch-specific. So, I think, we >>>>> should keep common fields in kvmctl.h. >>>>> >>>>> >>>> Are you suggesting that kvm_callbacks should be the union of all >>>> callbacks used on all architectures, and for any given architecture >>>> only a subset are actually used? >>>> >>>> >>> I think two separate callback structures would make more sense. >>> >>> Quite a few of the callbacks should have common implementations. For >>> instance, all of the io callbacks and the io_window callback should be >>> the same. I would expect most architectures have a concept of a >>> "halt" so that should probably be the same too. That pretty much >>> covers the majority of the callbacks structure :-) >>> >> Agree. >> > > OK, are you changing your position then? Anthony is saying there should > be multiple callback data structure definitions, but that the > *implementations* of some of those callbacks should be shared. For > example: > > ia64.h: > struct kvm_callbacks { > ... > .inb = pio_inb, > }; > > x86.h: > struct kvm_callbacks { > ... > .inb = pio_inb, > }; > > pio.c (built only for ia64 and x86): > int pio_inb(port) { > ... > } > I was actually advocating splitting the kvm_callbacks structure into two separate structures, one being architecture specific. But I don't think it's *that* important. Regards, Anthony Liguori ------------------------------------------------------------------------- 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/