On 2011-12-05 14:35, Marcelo Tosatti wrote: > On Sat, Dec 03, 2011 at 12:45:51PM +0100, Jan Kiszka wrote: >>>> I was referring to the relation between the IOCTL and kvmclock, but >>>> IOCTL vs. kvm_run. >>>> >>>> Jan >>> >>> Ah, OK. Yes, we better characterize it as KVMCLOCK specific (a generic >>> "guest is paused" command is not the scope of this patch). >>> >>> So appending KVMCLOCK_ to the ioctl definitions would make that more >>> explicit. >> >> IMHO, that would move things in the wrong direction. The IOCTL in itself >> has _nothing_ to do with kvmclock. It's just that its x86 backend is >> implemented on top of that infrastructure. For me the IOCTL is pretty >> generic, can be backed by kvmclock, but need not be on all future archs. >> >> Jan > > I do not see the need to lift this infrastructure to arch independent > status at the moment, without clear semantics on that arch independent > level. > > So I am fine with the current GUEST_PAUSED naming (which can later be > extended with GUEST_RESUMED etc, if necessary, for use by other archs > for example), and implementation in hw/kvmclock.c. > Yes, let's keep it as suggested last (addition of kvmclock, unchanged IOCTL interface). Jan
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
