From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Avi Kivity <avi@redhat.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/1] x2apic implementation for kvm
Date: Mon, 25 May 2009 12:07:33 +0300
Message-ID: <4A1A5FD5.5090406@redhat.com>
References: <1242927475-6140-1-git-send-email-gleb@redhat.com> <200905251430.06165.sheng@linux.intel.com> <20090525063811.GC3948@redhat.com> <200905251448.04183.sheng@linux.intel.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Cc: Gleb Natapov <gleb@redhat.com>, kvm@vger.kernel.org
To: Sheng Yang <sheng@linux.intel.com>
Return-path: <kvm-owner@vger.kernel.org>
Received: from mx2.redhat.com ([66.187.237.31]:47345 "EHLO mx2.redhat.com"
	rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP
	id S1750896AbZEYJHe (ORCPT <rfc822;kvm@vger.kernel.org>);
	Mon, 25 May 2009 05:07:34 -0400
In-Reply-To: <200905251448.04183.sheng@linux.intel.com>
Sender: kvm-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-ID: <kvm.vger.kernel.org>

Sheng Yang wrote:
> OK, you are totally talking about PV. For PV, I think let host kernel accept 
> the modification is more important here. (And for PV, using hypercall seems 
> more directly).
>   

Microsoft already defined their interfaces, and they use MSRs (but a 
different range from x2apic).

-- 
error compiling committee.c: too many arguments to function