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

Carsten Otte
2007-11-12T09:16:31Z

Avi Kivity wrote:
> For the present discussion, I agree, but in general we should be
> prepared to accept some no-op callouts.

Oh sure, I don't mind those. We'll have plenty of them, where other
architectures will need to take action and s390 won't. It's just that
in the current location, the common code would do

common_func() {
loop {
arch_callback();
}
}
And I suggested to make the whole thing a callback.