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

Hollis Blanchard
2007-11-08T20:18:27Z

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.

--
Hollis Blanchard
IBM Linux Technology Center