On 12/13/2010 09:03 PM, Scott Wood wrote:
> > The interface is a lot simpler. The guest decides what to patch and > where to jump. A "please patch me" flag needs a ton of documentation on > what patch means and what the constraints on the guest environment are. > The constraints need to be documented, but I think "a ton" is a bit of an exaggeration
I guess. It's correct for x86 (which has four processor modes, and you need to consider segmentation, etc.), perhaps not so much for powerpc.
-- and having the guest do the patching itself means that the structure of the shared page must become stable ABI.
It has to be a stable ABI in any case so you can live migrate. Unless you want the hypervisor to unpatch or something.
-- error compiling committee.c: too many arguments to function -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe kvm-ppc" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
