Re: [RFC PATCH 0/3] generic hypercall support

Chris Wright
2009-05-05T23:17:50Z

* Gregory Haskins (gregory.haskins@gmail.com) wrote:
> So you would never have someone making a generic
> hypercall(KVM_HC_MMU_OP). I agree.

Which is why I think the interface proposal you've made is wrong. There's
already hypercall interfaces w/ specific ABI and semantic meaning (which
are typically called directly/indirectly from an existing pv op hook).

But a free-form hypercall(unsigned long nr, unsigned long *args, size_t count)
means hypercall number and arg list must be the same in order for code
to call hypercall() in a hypervisor agnostic way.

The pv_ops level need to have semantic meaning, not a free form
hypercall multiplexor.

thanks,
-chris