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

[Carsten Otte <cotte-tA70FqPdS9bQT0dZR+AlfA@public.gmane.org>]

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.

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