On Wed, Feb 10, 2010 at 07:01:46PM +0200, Avi Kivity wrote: > On 02/10/2010 06:52 PM, Alexander Graf wrote: > > > >Hrm, trying to read the thread I'm still somewhat lost. What exactly do > >you want to document? > > > > The problem: if KVM_RUN exits with KVM_EXIT_MMIO or KVM_EXIT_IO, > then the internal state is inconsistent. The instruction is only > half completed, and we need to reissue KVM_RUN to complete it. > > However, if we're migrating, then we don't want to execute any more > guest code. Luckily, if you KVM_RUN with a pending signal, then the > pending mmio or io will be completed, and then, if the pending > signal is unmasked in kvm's signal mask, KVM_RUN will exit > immediately. > Can we be sure that pending signal checking will not be introduces somewhere in ioctl generic code before kvm specific code is called? > I would like to document the fact that the signal check happens > between the mmio completion and guest entry, and the above sequence > as a way to get consistent state after mmio. > > -- > error compiling committee.c: too many arguments to function -- Gleb. -- 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
