On 10/16/2012 05:00 PM, Marc Zyngier wrote: > On 16/10/12 14:43, Christoffer Dall wrote: >> On Mon, Oct 15, 2012 at 11:19 AM, Marc Zyngier<marc.zyngier@xxxxxxx> wrote: >>> Now that our world-switch is mostly layout independant, it becomes >>> relatively easy to move the usr_regs array to struct pt_regs. >>> >>> This gives us a common abstraction with the rest of the kernel, and >>> makes it similar to what is being done on the arm64 side. >>> >> Do you have any code that does this which you're referring to that the >> rest of us can see as to evaluate this argument? > The arm64 bit is not public yet. It will as soon as I have the green > light for it. > > When it comes to the use of pt_regs, grep-ing around in arch/arm will > give you a pretty compelling view of its usage, including kgdb which has > requirements that are similar to KVM's. > > It is a matter of uniformity in the arch/arm tree, the same way we'd > like to see as few as possible implementations of the opcode stuff. We > had way too many cases of the NIH syndrome in the past, and it would be > nice not to repeat the mistake. Yeah, we had a patch doing pt_regs on PPC as well a while back. The only reason we did not go for it is because we need to heavily PV'nize some registers (shared struct between guest and host) to be able to achieve good speeds with trap-and-emulate. Since you guys don't have that problem, I don't see any reason not to use pt_regs. Alex _______________________________________________ kvmarm mailing list kvmarm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.cs.columbia.edu/cucslists/listinfo/kvmarm
