[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:0.091 / U:17.616 seconds]
©2003-2018 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site