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

[Avi Kivity <avi-atKUWr5tajBWk0Htik3J/w@public.gmane.org>]

Zhang, Xiantao wrote:
>
>> - 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.
>>     
> OK,  Maybe we can move them to arch-specific.  
>
> Avi, How about your ideas?

I'm actually least qualified to comment since I only know about x86.  
Since this is all preparations before actual code is seen, it's hard to 
see where things are flowing.

I don't mind if a few mistakes are made along the way that are corrected 
later, as long as x86 continues to build and run fine.  It's okay to 
start working on this problem with a 10-pound hammer and move to atomic 
force microscopy once things are merged.

So, I will be very much inclined to accept anything that has gained the 
consensus of the arch maintainers.

-- 
error compiling committee.c: too many arguments to function


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