From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([140.186.70.92]:59061) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1RW7m0-0005YD-Nt for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Thu, 01 Dec 2011 09:38:10 -0500 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1RW7lu-0000gS-Rb for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Thu, 01 Dec 2011 09:38:04 -0500 Received: from goliath.siemens.de ([192.35.17.28]:30389) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1RW7lu-0000fu-Fg for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Thu, 01 Dec 2011 09:37:58 -0500 Message-ID: <4ED79138.60603@siemens.com> Date: Thu, 01 Dec 2011 15:37:44 +0100 From: Jan Kiszka MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <1322602574-27072-1-git-send-email-emunson@mgebm.net> In-Reply-To: <1322602574-27072-1-git-send-email-emunson@mgebm.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-15 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH] Guest stop notification List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , To: Eric B Munson Cc: ryanh@linux.vnet.ibm.com, aliguori@us.ibm.com, kvm@vger.kernel.org, mtosatti@redhat.com, qemu-devel@nongnu.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, avi@redhat.com On 2011-11-29 22:36, Eric B Munson wrote: > Often when a guest is stopped from the qemu console, it will report spurious > soft lockup warnings on resume. There are kernel patches being discussed that > will give the host the ability to tell the guest that it is being stopped and > should ignore the soft lockup warning that generates. > > Signed-off-by: Eric B Munson > Cc: ryanh@linux.vnet.ibm.com > Cc: aliguori@us.ibm.com > Cc: mtosatti@redhat.com > Cc: avi@redhat.com > Cc: kvm@vger.kernel.org > Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org > --- > target-i386/kvm.c | 6 ++++++ > 1 files changed, 6 insertions(+), 0 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/target-i386/kvm.c b/target-i386/kvm.c > index 5bfc21f..defd364 100644 > --- a/target-i386/kvm.c > +++ b/target-i386/kvm.c > @@ -336,12 +336,18 @@ static int kvm_inject_mce_oldstyle(CPUState *env) > return 0; > } > > +static void kvm_put_guest_paused(CPUState *penv) > +{ > + kvm_vcpu_ioctl(penv, KVM_GUEST_PAUSED, 0); > +} I see no need in encapsulating this in a separate function. > + > static void cpu_update_state(void *opaque, int running, RunState state) > { > CPUState *env = opaque; > > if (running) { > env->tsc_valid = false; > + kvm_put_guest_paused(env); checkpatch.pl would have asked you to remove this tab. More general: Why is this x86-only? If the kernel interface is x86-only, what prevents making it generic right from the beginning? Why do we need a new IOCTL for this? Was there no space left in the kvm_run structure e.g. to pass this flag down on next vcpu execution? No big deal, just wondering. Jan -- Siemens AG, Corporate Technology, CT T DE IT 1 Corporate Competence Center Embedded Linux