From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Avi Kivity Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] KVM: x86: Extend KVM_SET_VCPU_EVENTS with selective updates Date: Tue, 15 Dec 2009 19:10:01 +0200 Message-ID: <4B27C2E9.5090402@redhat.com> References: <4B1BE216.2090407@web.de> <4B1BE452.6090107@redhat.com> <4B1BE8BF.7030404@web.de> <20091208140249.GA19154@amt.cnet> <4B1E5DA4.3010605@redhat.com> <20091208205240.GA24565@amt.cnet> <4B1EC252.9040009@web.de> <4B27A223.1050706@redhat.com> <4B27BCAF.70804@web.de> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: Marcelo Tosatti , kvm , Gleb Natapov To: Jan Kiszka Return-path: Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([209.132.183.28]:31511 "EHLO mx1.redhat.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1760636AbZLORKD (ORCPT ); Tue, 15 Dec 2009 12:10:03 -0500 In-Reply-To: <4B27BCAF.70804@web.de> Sender: kvm-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On 12/15/2009 06:43 PM, Jan Kiszka wrote: > >> I now agree. But instead of SCOPE_RESET and SCOPE_RUNTIME (or whatever >> that was), how about SCOPE_GPR, SCOPE_FPU, SCOPE_SREGS etc. That means >> the backing code in kvm.c doesn't have to know what qemu is interested >> in wrt SCOPE_RESET, and it's easier for readers to infer what is meant. >> > That's not my idea. I want to be able to state the scope in generic, > arch-independent, KVM-unaware code. What the scope actually means /wrt > writeback should only be defined in the arch-specific kvm service > implementing it. Your suggestion would go in the wrong direction IMO. > What I'm worried is how to tell which registers go in which scope? And contrariwise, when doing a cpu_synchronize_state(), how to select the scope? It's easy when there's just normal and reset, but what happens when we gain another one? The code may not know who calls it. -- error compiling committee.c: too many arguments to function