On 02/26/2010 03:04 PM, Joerg Roedel wrote:
I'm still not convinced on this way of doing things. If it's static,
make it static. If it's dynamic, make it dynamic. Dynamically
generating a static list just sounds plain wrong to me.
Stop. I had a static list in the first version of the patch. This list
was fine except the fact that a developer needs to remember to update
this list if the list of non-intercepted msrs is expanded. The whole
reason for a dynamically built list is to take the task of maintaining
the list away from the developer and remove a possible source of hard to
find bugs. This is what the current approach does.
The problem was the two lists. If you had a
static struct svm_direct_access_msrs = {
u32 index;
bool longmode_only;
} direct_access_msrs = {
...
};
You could generate
static unsigned *msrpm_offsets_longmode, *msrpm_offsets_legacy;
as well as the original bitmaps at module init, no?
--
Do not meddle in the internals of kernels, for they are subtle and quick to panic.
--
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
