Am 05.05.2014 11:00, schrieb Pranavkumar Sawargaonkar:
> Introduce a common kvm_arm_vcpu_init() for doing KVM_ARM_VCPU_INIT
> ioctl in KVM ARM and KVM ARM64. This also helps us factor-out few
> common code lines from kvm_arch_init_vcpu() for KVM ARM/ARM64.
>
> Signed-off-by: Pranavkumar Sawargaonkar <pranavkumar@xxxxxxxxxx>
> Signed-off-by: Anup Patel <anup.patel@xxxxxxxxxx>
> ---
> target-arm/kvm.c | 23 +++++++++++++++++++++++
> target-arm/kvm32.c | 18 +++---------------
> target-arm/kvm64.c | 22 ++++++++--------------
> target-arm/kvm_arm.h | 14 ++++++++++++++
> 4 files changed, 48 insertions(+), 29 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/target-arm/kvm.c b/target-arm/kvm.c
> index 39202d7..55bc3a3 100644
> --- a/target-arm/kvm.c
> +++ b/target-arm/kvm.c
> @@ -27,6 +27,29 @@ const KVMCapabilityInfo kvm_arch_required_capabilities[] = {
> KVM_CAP_LAST_INFO
> };
>
> +int kvm_arm_vcpu_init(CPUState *cs, uint32_t feature0_extra)
Since this is ARM-specific code and both kvm_arch_* implementations cast
it, you could use an ARMCPU *cpu argument - but as you need cs for the
ioctl, it's no net win, so your/PMM's choice.
Apart from that, refactoring looks fine to me.
Cleaning up the fprintf() moved will hopefully be done independently.
Regards,
Andreas
--
SUSE LINUX Products GmbH, Maxfeldstr. 5, 90409 Nürnberg, Germany
GF: Jeff Hawn, Jennifer Guild, Felix Imendörffer; HRB 16746 AG Nürnberg
_______________________________________________
kvmarm mailing list
kvmarm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://lists.cs.columbia.edu/mailman/listinfo/kvmarm
