[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <4D41659B.1010706@redhat.com>
Date: Thu, 27 Jan 2011 14:31:23 +0200
From: Avi Kivity <avi@...hat.com>
To: Glauber Costa <glommer@...hat.com>
CC: Anthony Liguori <anthony@...emonkey.ws>, kvm@...r.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, aliguori@...ibm.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH 01/16] KVM-HDR: register KVM basic header infrastructure
On 01/26/2011 07:49 PM, Glauber Costa wrote:
> >
> > If type becomes implied based on the MSR number, you'd get the best of
> > both worlds, no?
> >
> > I do think advertising features in CPUID is nicer than writing to an MSR
> > and then checking for an ack in the memory region.
> Fine. But back to the point, I think the reasoning here is that I see
> all those areas as just a single feature, shared data.
That's not a feature. kvmclock and apf are features.
> >
> > I do think having a standard mechanism for small regions of shared
> > memory between the hypervisor and guest is a reasonable thing to do.
>
> Through what I am proposing, or through something else? (including
> slight variations)
>
I'd like to keep the current way of doing things. Helpers in the guest
and host to consolidate code are fine, but there's no need to impact the
ABI.
e.g.
kvm_register_feature_msr(u32 msr, u64 alignment, struct cpuid_bit
*feature, int (*callback)(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu, u64 value))
will install handlers for wrmsr and rdmsr, and declare the msr for
save/restore, tell the wrmsr handler which cpuid bit allows exposing the
msr, and registers a callback for when the msr is written by the guest.
--
error compiling committee.c: too many arguments to function
--
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