[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <30b847cf-98db-145f-8aa0-a847146d5649@redhat.com>
Date: Mon, 23 Mar 2020 20:47:04 +0100
From: Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@...hat.com>
To: Vitaly Kuznetsov <vkuznets@...hat.com>,
Sean Christopherson <sean.j.christopherson@...el.com>
Cc: Paul Mackerras <paulus@...abs.org>,
Christian Borntraeger <borntraeger@...ibm.com>,
Janosch Frank <frankja@...ux.ibm.com>,
David Hildenbrand <david@...hat.com>,
Cornelia Huck <cohuck@...hat.com>,
Wanpeng Li <wanpengli@...cent.com>,
Jim Mattson <jmattson@...gle.com>,
Joerg Roedel <joro@...tes.org>, Marc Zyngier <maz@...nel.org>,
James Morse <james.morse@....com>,
Julien Thierry <julien.thierry.kdev@...il.com>,
Suzuki K Poulose <suzuki.poulose@....com>,
linux-mips@...r.kernel.org, kvm@...r.kernel.org,
kvm-ppc@...r.kernel.org, linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org,
kvmarm@...ts.cs.columbia.edu, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 2/9] KVM: x86: Move init-only kvm_x86_ops to separate
struct
On 23/03/20 17:24, Vitaly Kuznetsov wrote:
> Sounds cool! (not sure that with only two implementations people won't
> call it 'over-engineered' but cool).
Yes, something like
#define KVM_X86_OP(name) .name = vmx_##name
(svm_##name for svm.c) and then
KVM_X86_OP(check_nested_events)
etc.
> My personal wish would just be that
> function names in function implementations are not auto-generated so
> e.g. a simple 'git grep vmx_hardware_setup' works
Yes, absolutely; the function names would still be written by hand.
Paolo
> but the way how we
> fill vmx_x86_ops in can be macroed I guess.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists