On Fri, May 08, 2009 at 10:18:14AM +0300, Gleb Natapov wrote:
> On Fri, May 08, 2009 at 02:25:11AM -0300, Glauber Costa wrote:
> > On Wed, May 06, 2009 at 01:51:04PM +0300, Avi Kivity wrote:
> > > Gleb Natapov wrote:
> > >> On Tue, May 05, 2009 at 02:40:11PM -0400, Glauber Costa wrote:
> > >>
> > >>> diff --git a/arch/x86/include/asm/kvm_host.h b/arch/x86/include/asm/kvm_host.h
> > >>> index 8e680c3..a49d07b 100644
> > >>> --- a/arch/x86/include/asm/kvm_host.h
> > >>> +++ b/arch/x86/include/asm/kvm_host.h
> > >>> @@ -510,6 +510,8 @@ struct kvm_x86_ops {
> > >>> void (*run)(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu, struct kvm_run *run);
> > >>> int (*handle_exit)(struct kvm_run *run, struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu);
> > >>> void (*skip_emulated_instruction)(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu);
> > >>> + void (*set_interrupt_shadow)(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu, int mask);
> > >>>
> > >> There is .drop_interrupt_shadow() callback. The patch should remove it and
> > >> replace its use by set_interrupt_shadow().
> > >>
> > >
> > > That would be [PATCH 1/2].
> > [PATCH 2/2]. Otherwise we will break bisectability, as the pure removal of this
> > function would lead us to a non-functioning kernel for no reason.
> >
> > Avi: if this patch is okay, please apply. I'll send another one later that replaces
> > the existing .drop_interrupt_shadow by the (then) in tree set_interrupt_shadow.
> >
> It is not always easy to understand what Avi means :) but my
> interpretation was that patch 1/2 should replace drop_interrupt_shadow()
> with set_interrupt_shadow() and 2/2 should be only emulation changes.
ok... I'll send an updated version.
--
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
