Avi Kivity wrote: > On 10/15/2009 06:22 PM, Jan Kiszka wrote: >>> Needs a KVM_CAP as well. >>> >> KVM_CAP_VCPU_STATE will imply KVM_CAP_NMI_STATE, so I skipped the latter >> (user space code would use the former anyway to avoid yet another #ifdef >> layer). >> > > OK. New bits will need the KVM_CAP, though. For sure. > > Perhaps it makes sense to query about individual states, including > existing ones? That will allow us to deprecate and then phase out > broken states. It's probably not worth it. You may do this already with the given design: Set up a VCPU, then issue KVM_GET_VCPU_STATE on the substate in question. You will either get an error code or 0 if the substate is supported. At least no additional kernel code required. Jan -- Siemens AG, Corporate Technology, CT SE 2 Corporate Competence Center Embedded Linux -- 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
