Hello! > It has: unlike the scenario that was the original motivation for Peter's > patches, where the the userspace wanted to handle register accesses > which the kernel *didn't*, in case of SynIC the userspace wants do > something about MSR accesses *only* if the kernel *also* handles them. Well... I believe, that qemu knows if we are instantiating SynIC. And, if we are, it knows that the kernel will do something about it. Otherwise these registers don't exist, and, by the way, the guest is not expected to touch them, is it? > I guess that was the reason why Paolo suggested an extra exit_reason, > and I think .handled field can be used to pass that information instead. [skip] > But the proposed use of .handled costs basically nothing, and it may > prove useful in general (as a conisistency proof, if anything). Well... May be... So, i'm OK with it. Kind regards, Pavel Fedin Expert Engineer Samsung Electronics Research center Russia -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe kvm" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
