From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Glauber Costa Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH 1/4] [PATCH] introduce QEMUAccel and fill it with interrupt specific driver Date: Fri, 02 May 2008 17:17:25 -0300 Message-ID: <481B76D5.40607@redhat.com> References: <12097505533742-git-send-email-gcosta@redhat.com> <20080502181607.GA2827@shareable.org> <481B705A.8010203@redhat.com> <200805022116.29278.paul@codesourcery.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: kvm-devel@lists.sourceforge.net, mtosatti@redhat.com, qemu-devel@nongnu.org To: Paul Brook Return-path: In-Reply-To: <200805022116.29278.paul@codesourcery.com> List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: kvm-devel-bounces@lists.sourceforge.net Errors-To: kvm-devel-bounces@lists.sourceforge.net List-Id: kvm.vger.kernel.org Paul Brook wrote: >>> Maybe 'VCPU' would be a clearer name? QEMU provides its own VCPU, and >>> KQEMU+QEMU also provide one toegether. While KVM provides essentially >>> one or more whole VCPUs by itself and uses QEMU's drivers only doesn't >>> it? >>> >>> -- Jamie >> VCPU is rather confusing with the vcpus themselves. KVM, for instance, >> has its own structures called "vcpu". >> >> If it is preferred, however, we can name the structure VCPUOperations, >> and change the function names that involves accel_yyy to vcpu_op_yyy() > > kvm wants to hook into more than just the CPU doesn't it? But so far, the structure I proposed only touches cpu-related things. We can have two structures for clarity. Like MEMOperations, and so far. We do it this way for paravirt_ops in linux, with good results in code clarity. ------------------------------------------------------------------------- This SF.net email is sponsored by the 2008 JavaOne(SM) Conference Don't miss this year's exciting event. There's still time to save $100. Use priority code J8TL2D2. http://ad.doubleclick.net/clk;198757673;13503038;p?http://java.sun.com/javaone