Messages in this thread |  | | | Date | Tue, 5 May 2009 16:17:18 -0700 | | From | Chris Wright <> | | Subject | Re: [RFC PATCH 0/3] generic hypercall support |
| |
* Gregory Haskins (gregory.haskins@gmail.com) 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.
thanks, -chris
|  |