From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([208.118.235.92]:59940)
	by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71)
	(envelope-from <agraf@suse.de>) id 1SePxV-0003LX-6Z
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Tue, 12 Jun 2012 08:12:30 -0400
Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71)
	(envelope-from <agraf@suse.de>) id 1SePxM-0003TO-KZ
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Tue, 12 Jun 2012 08:12:28 -0400
Received: from cantor2.suse.de ([195.135.220.15]:46972 helo=mx2.suse.de)
	by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71)
	(envelope-from <agraf@suse.de>) id 1SePxM-0003Sg-F0
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Tue, 12 Jun 2012 08:12:20 -0400
Message-ID: <4FD73220.5000408@suse.de>
Date: Tue, 12 Jun 2012 14:12:16 +0200
From: Alexander Graf <agraf@suse.de>
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <1338984323-21914-1-git-send-email-jfrei@de.ibm.com>
	<1338984323-21914-3-git-send-email-jfrei@de.ibm.com>
	<4FD70CC0.7000901@suse.de> <4FD725EB.7050501@de.ibm.com>
	<4FD72EC2.2010105@suse.de> <4FD72FD4.6020008@de.ibm.com>
In-Reply-To: <4FD72FD4.6020008@de.ibm.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH 2/8] s390: autodetect map private
List-Id: <qemu-devel.nongnu.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/options/qemu-devel>,
	<mailto:qemu-devel-request@nongnu.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.nongnu.org/archive/html/qemu-devel>
List-Post: <mailto:qemu-devel@nongnu.org>
List-Help: <mailto:qemu-devel-request@nongnu.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/qemu-devel>,
	<mailto:qemu-devel-request@nongnu.org?subject=subscribe>
To: Christian Borntraeger <borntraeger@de.ibm.com>
Cc: Jens Freimann <jfrei@de.ibm.com>, Heinz Graalfs <graalfs@linux.vnet.ibm.com>, Jan Kiszka <jan.kiszka@siemens.com>, qemu-devel <qemu-devel@nongnu.org>, Jens Freimann <jfrei@linux.vnet.ibm.com>, Cornelia Huck <cornelia.huck@de.ibm.com>

On 06/12/2012 02:02 PM, Christian Borntraeger wrote:
> On 12/06/12 13:57, Alexander Graf wrote:
>> Since it lives in an s390 specific branch, the function name should probably be called s390 specific. If we ever need another architecture to have a kvm specific ram allocator, we can make it generic when that time comes. Until then, let's treat s390 as the oddball it is :).
>>
>> Apart from that, this approach looks a lot nicer, yes.
> But then I have to have a *s390* function declared in kvm.h and your other comment
> hits me. You got me in a trap here, heh? ;-)

Ah, I see what you mean. I was thinking of having a 
target-s390x/kvm_s390x.h or so. Then we could add the function 
definition there and have everything nicely contained within 
target-s390x only.

Jan, which approach would you think is cleaner? Make this a generic 
kvm_arch callback or introduce a special kvm_s390x.h header which would 
then have to be explicitly included in exec.c?


Alex