[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <200801071153.57710.rusty@rustcorp.com.au>
Date: Mon, 7 Jan 2008 11:53:57 +1100
From: Rusty Russell <rusty@...tcorp.com.au>
To: "Glauber de Oliveira Costa" <glommer@...il.com>
Cc: "Glauber de Oliveira Costa" <gcosta@...hat.com>, lguest@...abs.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
virtualization@...ts.linux-foundation.org, rostedt@...dmis.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/16] lguest: introduce vcpu structure
On Monday 07 January 2008 04:33:53 Glauber de Oliveira Costa wrote:
> On Dec 25, 2007 9:54 PM, Rusty Russell <rusty@...tcorp.com.au> wrote:
> > My only question is whether we should go further and vpu-ify routines
> > like lgread and kill_guest, so that we can avoid more "lg" temporary
> > variables...
>
> Essentially, they don't need it, because they only touch
> globally-visible variables (visible to the guest).
> So it's more of an stylish thing. Using the vcpu in the signature can
> have only one harm:
> It needs the caller to also have a pointer to a vcpu, so we may end up
> using it everywhere, like a domino fall.
>
> Alternatively, in such functions that don't currently receive a vcpu
> (nor they need to), we can convention to always pass
> lg->vcpus[0] to lgread, kill_guest, etc. Which one do you prefer?
I'm happy with a domino effect. I don't want to see lg->vcpus[0] *anywhere*
though, because it's non-futureproof.
When I looked through these patches it seems to me that we should accept that
vcpu is now the basic guest unit, and lg exists to serve it. Otherwise I
think you can see the bones of the old UP code poking through, and that's
ugly.
Thanks!
Rusty.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists