* Gregory Haskins (ghaskins@xxxxxxxxxx) wrote: > Chris Wright wrote: > > 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. > > Yes, and that is exactly the intention. I think its perhaps the point > you are missing. Yes, I was reading this as purely any hypercall, but it seems a bit more like: pv_io_ops->iomap() pv_io_ops->ioread() pv_io_ops->iowrite() <snip> > Today, there is no equivelent of a platform agnostic "iowrite32()" for > hypercalls so the driver would look like the pseudocode above except > substitute with kvm_hypercall(), lguest_hypercall(), etc. The proposal > is to allow the hypervisor to assign a dynamic vector to resources in > the backend and convey this vector to the guest (such as in PCI > config-space as mentioned in my example use-case). The provides the > "address negotiation" function that would normally be done for something > like a pio port-address. The hypervisor agnostic driver can then use > this globally recognized address-token coupled with other device-private > ABI parameters to communicate with the device. This can all occur > without the core hypervisor needing to understand the details beyond the > addressing. VF drivers can also have this issue (and typically use mmio). I at least have a better idea what your proposal is, thanks for explanation. Are you able to demonstrate concrete benefit with it yet (improved latency numbers for example)? thanks, -chris -- 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
