Re: [PATCH]3/5 Using kvm_arch prefix to define functions, and replace

Carsten Otte
2007-11-09T09:01:27Z

Hollis Blanchard wrote:
> On Thu, 2007-11-08 at 14:49 +0100, Carsten Otte wrote:
>> Zhang, Xiantao wrote:
>>> +void kvm_arch_vcpu_free(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu);
>>> +void kvm_arch_vcpu_decache(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu);
>>> +void kvm_arch_vcpu_load(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu, int cpu);
>>> +void kvm_arch_vcpu_put(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu);
>>> +struct kvm_vcpu *kvm_arch_vcpu_create(struct kvm *kvm, unsigned int
>>> id);
>>> +
>>> +int kvm_arch_vcpu_reset(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu);
>>> +void kvm_arch_hardware_enable(void *garbage);
>>> +void kvm_arch_hardware_disable(void *garbage);
>>> +int kvm_arch_hardware_setup(void);
>>> +void kvm_arch_hardware_unsetup(void);
>>> +void kvm_arch_check_processor_compat(void *rtn);
>> I don't like the generic introduction of all x86_ops wrappers into the
>> arch callbacks. I would rather prefer to work out a different split
>> between common and arch specifics - at least in the following cases:
>> - unloading the mmu needs to be moved out of kvm_free_vcpus into the
>> arch part, because we don't have a shaddow mmu on s390
>> - decache_vcpus_on_cpu should be arch-dependent alltogether, rather
>> than having a per cpu callback. We've got nothing to decache, so the
>> entire thing is a nop for us.
>> - vcpu_reset works very different for our architecture, we'd need an
>> initial processor status word. I'd prefer to keep the existence of
>> this callback arch dependent.
>> - hardware enable/disable/setup/unsetup/check_processor_compat does not
>> make any sense for us: all CPUs that have been sold since the 1970s have
>> proper hardware virtualization, and there's nothing to enable - it just
>> works.
>
> Sounds fine to me: you're just proposing to move the abstraction one
> level higher in some places.
That's right, I'd like to drag the bar a little where the common code
does something just to call a callback that is nop for us.