Re: [PATCH]0/2 Patches to furthure split kvm_init

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

Zhang, Xiantao wrote:
> Avi Kivity wrote:
>   
>> Zhang, Xiantao wrote:
>>     
>>> Avi Kivity wrote:
>>>
>>>       
>>>> Christian Ehrhardt wrote:
>>>>
>>>>         
>>>>> Hi Xiantao,
>>>>> it looks good to me to move kvm_vcpu_cache out to the x86 specific
>>>>> code 
>>>>>
>>>>>           
>>>> Why is that?  Do other archs not want kvm_vcpu_cache, or is it just
>>>> the alignment? 
>>>>
>>>>         
>>> At lease we didn't fall across the similar requirements about such
>>> alignment issues in IA64. 
>>>
>>>       
>> What I mean is, other archs do require kvm_vcpu_cache (without the
>> alignment), so why move the code?  Just make the alignment arch
>> dependent with a #define.
>>     
>
> I think IA64 TOTALLY doen't need this logic, so do the move:)
>
>   

Ah, I see.  It isn't just the alignment. How do you allocate kvm_vcpu, then?


What about s390 and powerpc?  I imagine they don't have an alignment
issue, but do they have a totally unique way of allocating vcpus as well?

Maybe we should just #ifndef CONFIG_IA64 (or #ifdef
CONFIG_HAVE_SPECIAL_VCPU_ALLOC) this bit instead of duplicating it for
s390 and ppc.

-- 
Do not meddle in the internals of kernels, for they are subtle and quick to panic.


-------------------------------------------------------------------------
SF.Net email is sponsored by: The Future of Linux Business White Paper
from Novell.  From the desktop to the data center, Linux is going
mainstream.  Let it simplify your IT future.
http://altfarm.mediaplex.com/ad/ck/8857-50307-18918-4