On Wed, Jul 13, 2011 at 9:37 AM, Pekka Enberg <penberg@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On 07/12/2011 02:23 PM, Sasha Levin wrote:
>>> > I don't insist on a new type of exit, just pointing out the problem.
>>>
>>> I agree with you, I don't have a better solution either.
>>>
>>> I don't feel it's worth it adding so much code for read support to
>>> properly work. Can we do this patch series without socket read support
>>> at the moment?
>
> On Tue, Jul 12, 2011 at 2:26 PM, Avi Kivity <avi@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> No. As I said before, I don't want a fragmented ABI.
>
> OK, what's the simplest thing we can do here to keep Avi happy and get
> the functionality of Sasha's original patch that helps us avoid guest
> exits for serial console? I agree with Avi that we don't want
> fragmented ABI but it seems to me there's no clear idea how to fix
> KVM_IOEVENTFD_FLAG_SOCKET corner cases, right?
And btw, I didn't follow the discussion closely, but introducing a new
type of exit for a feature that's designed to _avoid exits_ doesn't
seem like a smart thing to do. Is it even possible to support sockets
sanely for this?
Pekka
--
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
