From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S965456Ab2CPIDV (ORCPT ); Fri, 16 Mar 2012 04:03:21 -0400 Received: from cn.fujitsu.com ([222.73.24.84]:23677 "EHLO song.cn.fujitsu.com" rhost-flags-OK-FAIL-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S964997Ab2CPIDO (ORCPT ); Fri, 16 Mar 2012 04:03:14 -0400 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.73,597,1325433600"; d="scan'208";a="4551150" Message-ID: <4F62F430.7030103@cn.fujitsu.com> Date: Fri, 16 Mar 2012 16:05:04 +0800 From: Wen Congyang User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux x86_64; en-US; rv:1.9.1.9) Gecko/20100413 Fedora/3.0.4-2.fc13 Thunderbird/3.0.4 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Avi Kivity CC: Jan Kiszka , Gleb Natapov , Eric Northup , "Daniel P. Berrange" , kvm list , qemu-devel , "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" , KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki , Amit Shah Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/2 v3] kvm: notify host when guest panicked References: <4F60726E.3090807@cn.fujitsu.com> <4F607325.6050607@redhat.com> <20120314104608.GU2304@redhat.com> <4F607789.4010109@redhat.com> <4F607CE4.2060809@cn.fujitsu.com> <4F609822.7050502@redhat.com> <20120314131415.GB2304@redhat.com> <4F609A15.5020902@redhat.com> <20120314132552.GC2304@redhat.com> <20120315103923.GL2304@redhat.com> <4F61D1AF.4040603@siemens.com> <4F61D688.5040406@redhat.com> In-Reply-To: <4F61D688.5040406@redhat.com> X-MIMETrack: Itemize by SMTP Server on mailserver/fnst(Release 8.5.1FP4|July 25, 2010) at 2012-03-16 16:01:05, Serialize by Router on mailserver/fnst(Release 8.5.1FP4|July 25, 2010) at 2012-03-16 16:01:09, Serialize complete at 2012-03-16 16:01:09 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org At 03/15/2012 07:46 PM, Avi Kivity Wrote: > On 03/15/2012 01:25 PM, Jan Kiszka wrote: >>>> >>> There was such vm exit (KVM_EXIT_HYPERCALL), but it was deemed to be a >>> bad idea. >> >> BTW, this would help a lot in emulating hypercalls of other hypervisors >> (or of KVM's VAPIC in the absence of in-kernel irqchip - I had to jump >> through hoops therefore) in user space. Not all those hypercall handlers >> actually have to reside in the KVM module. >> > > That is true. On the other hand the hypercall ABI might go to pieces if > there was no central implementation. > I prefer this: host <-> guest kernel: use hypercall host <-> guest userspace: use virtio-serial(or other way that not modify kernel) Thanks Wen Congyang