Avi Kivity wrote: > On 11/10/2009 03:22 PM, Jan Kiszka wrote: >>> Since we have very few variable-size states, and their number is >>> unlikely to increase, ad-hoc handling should be sufficient. >>> >> Regarding CPU states, there is actually only the MSR interface. >> >> > > cpuid internal states too. Oh, yes. > >> So the new roadmap shall be like this: >> >> o Add KVM_X86_GET/SET_EVENT_STATES (instead of >> KVM_X86_VCPU_STATE_EVENTS) >> >> o Refactor in-kernel VCPU state IOCTLs to use table-driven dispatching >> and shared argument passing >> >> o Maybe refactor user space as well towards a table-driven state sync >> (need to think about this a bit more) >> >> Any other comments or does everyone agree? >> > > Looks good to me. These are all independent, of course. Yep. The first one will come first and ASAP, should be easy to derive from existing series. The others have to wait a bit now. 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
