[lkml]   [2009]   [May]   [5]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
    SubjectRe: [RFC PATCH 0/3] generic hypercall support
    * Gregory Haskins ( wrote:
    > So you would never have someone making a generic
    > hypercall(KVM_HC_MMU_OP). I agree.

    Which is why I think the interface proposal you've made is wrong. There's
    already hypercall interfaces w/ specific ABI and semantic meaning (which
    are typically called directly/indirectly from an existing pv op hook).

    But a free-form hypercall(unsigned long nr, unsigned long *args, size_t count)
    means hypercall number and arg list must be the same in order for code
    to call hypercall() in a hypervisor agnostic way.

    The pv_ops level need to have semantic meaning, not a free form
    hypercall multiplexor.


     \ /
      Last update: 2009-05-06 01:21    [W:0.023 / U:13.356 seconds]
    ©2003-2016 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site