[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <YemZPAgGsbiUokZk@google.com>
Date: Thu, 20 Jan 2022 17:17:48 +0000
From: Sean Christopherson <seanjc@...gle.com>
To: Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com>
Cc: Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@...hat.com>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
aleksandar.qemu.devel@...il.com, alexandru.elisei@....com,
anup.patel@....com, aou@...s.berkeley.edu, atish.patra@....com,
borntraeger@...ux.ibm.com, bp@...en8.de, catalin.marinas@....com,
chenhuacai@...nel.org, dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com,
frankja@...ux.ibm.com, frederic@...nel.org, gor@...ux.ibm.com,
hca@...ux.ibm.com, james.morse@....com, jmattson@...gle.com,
joro@...tes.org, luto@...nel.org, maz@...nel.org, mingo@...hat.com,
mpe@...erman.id.au, nsaenzju@...hat.com, palmer@...belt.com,
paulmck@...nel.org, paul.walmsley@...ive.com, peterz@...radead.org,
suzuki.poulose@....com, svens@...ux.ibm.com, tglx@...utronix.de,
tsbogend@...ha.franken.de, vkuznets@...hat.com,
wanpengli@...cent.com, will@...nel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 4/7] kvm/mips: rework guest entry logic
On Thu, Jan 20, 2022, Mark Rutland wrote:
> Longer-term MIPS should move to a loop like everyone else has:
>
> for (;;) {
> status = kvm_mips_enter_exit_vcpu();
>
> if (handle_exit(status))
> break;
>
> ...
> }
>
> ... which is far easier to manage.
I don't suppose we can just remove MIPS "support"? And PPC while we're at it? :-D
Powered by blists - more mailing lists