From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Avi Kivity Subject: Re: [PATCH] [RFC] Activate VMX on demand Date: Tue, 04 Nov 2008 16:38:13 +0200 Message-ID: <49105E55.9040804@redhat.com> References: <1225729181-24431-1-git-send-email-agraf@suse.de> <491025AE.1030601@redhat.com> <49105022.6050207@redhat.com> <43DCCB62-2EA6-4EAD-A1B9-6ED129E85D59@suse.de> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: kvm@vger.kernel.org, Sander.Vanleeuwen@sun.com, kraxel@redhat.com, anthony@codemonkey.ws, zach@vmware.com To: Alexander Graf Return-path: Received: from mx2.redhat.com ([66.187.237.31]:44069 "EHLO mx2.redhat.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752177AbYKDOiX (ORCPT ); Tue, 4 Nov 2008 09:38:23 -0500 In-Reply-To: <43DCCB62-2EA6-4EAD-A1B9-6ED129E85D59@suse.de> Sender: kvm-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: Alexander Graf wrote: > > Ok. But I think this would change kvm_main.c, not x86.c, right? Yes, thinko/remembero. > We'd basically move hardware_enable and disable generically from the > module initialization to the vcpu creation. Could this break other > architectures? Only if they do something in between. Can't see how they could. -- error compiling committee.c: too many arguments to function