From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Carsten Otte Subject: Re: [PATCH]3/5 Using kvm_arch prefix to define functions, and replace Date: Mon, 12 Nov 2007 10:16:31 +0100 Message-ID: <473819EF.2090301@de.ibm.com> References: <42DFA526FC41B1429CE7279EF83C6BDC905005@pdsmsx415.ccr.corp.intel.com> <473313D8.4010604@de.ibm.com> <1194553107.22879.29.camel@basalt> <473421E7.2070205@de.ibm.com> <4736DE50.5010200@qumranet.com> Reply-To: carsteno-tA70FqPdS9bQT0dZR+AlfA@public.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: carsteno-tA70FqPdS9bQT0dZR+AlfA@public.gmane.org, kvm-devel-5NWGOfrQmneRv+LV9MX5uipxlwaOVQ5f@public.gmane.org, "Zhang, Xiantao" , Hollis Blanchard To: Avi Kivity Return-path: In-Reply-To: <4736DE50.5010200-atKUWr5tajBWk0Htik3J/w@public.gmane.org> List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: kvm-devel-bounces-5NWGOfrQmneRv+LV9MX5uipxlwaOVQ5f@public.gmane.org Errors-To: kvm-devel-bounces-5NWGOfrQmneRv+LV9MX5uipxlwaOVQ5f@public.gmane.org List-Id: kvm.vger.kernel.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/