From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Avi Kivity Subject: Re: KVM call minutes for Sept 21 Date: Sun, 26 Sep 2010 16:50:34 +0200 Message-ID: <4C9F5DBA.3030208@redhat.com> References: <20100921180506.GI28009@x200.localdomain> <20100922000438.GA2844@fermat.math.technion.ac.il> <4C9F4A37.9010906@redhat.com> <20100926142817.GA14396@fermat.math.technion.ac.il> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: Chris Wright , kvm@vger.kernel.org To: "Nadav Har'El" Return-path: Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([209.132.183.28]:65178 "EHLO mx1.redhat.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751755Ab0IZOum (ORCPT ); Sun, 26 Sep 2010 10:50:42 -0400 In-Reply-To: <20100926142817.GA14396@fermat.math.technion.ac.il> Sender: kvm-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On 09/26/2010 04:28 PM, Nadav Har'El wrote: > > I'm worried about maintaining core vmx after nvmx is merged, not nvmx > > itself. There are simply many more things to consider when making a change. > > Right, but how can we avoid this issue, assuming that you do want nvmx in? We can't avoid it. We can mitigate it to some extent by structuring the code correctly. > May I ask how this effected nested SVM? > I kept breaking nsvm when making changes to core svm, and Joerg kept fixing them. -- error compiling committee.c: too many arguments to function