[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <4BEE561E.5020607@redhat.com>
Date: Sat, 15 May 2010 11:06:54 +0300
From: Avi Kivity <avi@...hat.com>
To: Sheng Yang <sheng@...ux.intel.com>
CC: Marcelo Tosatti <mtosatti@...hat.com>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>, kvm@...r.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/3] KVM: x86: Use FPU API
On 05/14/2010 06:16 AM, Sheng Yang wrote:
> Convert KVM to use generic FPU API.
>
> Signed-off-by: Sheng Yang<sheng@...ux.intel.com>
> ---
> arch/x86/include/asm/kvm_host.h | 18 +---------
> arch/x86/kvm/x86.c | 73 ++++++++++++---------------------------
> 2 files changed, 23 insertions(+), 68 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/arch/x86/include/asm/kvm_host.h b/arch/x86/include/asm/kvm_host.h
> index ed48904..beba6f5 100644
> --- a/arch/x86/include/asm/kvm_host.h
> +++ b/arch/x86/include/asm/kvm_host.h
> @@ -300,8 +300,7 @@ struct kvm_vcpu_arch {
> unsigned long mmu_seq;
> } update_pte;
>
> - struct i387_fxsave_struct host_fx_image;
> - struct i387_fxsave_struct guest_fx_image;
> + struct fpu host_fpu, guest_fpu;
>
>
Do we really need host_fpu? I think we can call unlazy_fpu() instead
and drop host_fpu completely. This might reduce the need for changes in
patch 1 (as well as generally improving the code).
--
Do not meddle in the internals of kernels, for they are subtle and quick to panic.
--
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