On 07.12.2011, at 15:12, Avi Kivity <avi@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On 12/07/2011 08:44 AM, Alexander Graf wrote: >> On 07.12.2011, at 01:32, Matt Evans <matt@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> >>> On 06/12/11 19:22, Sasha Levin wrote: >>>> If KVM_RUN can actually return anything besides 0 or -1 it may be also >>>> worthwhile to update Documentation/virtual/kvm/api.txt . >>>> >>>> What are the cases where it happens? >>> >>> Well, on PPC the internal kvmppc_run_vcpu() returns either RESUME_GUEST (which >>> stays in-kernel and drops back to the guest) or RESUME_HOST, which is propagated >>> back out to userland as the return value of ioctl(KVM_RUN). So, anything >>> kvmtool sees is either <0 for error or RESUME_HOST, i.e. 2. >>> >>> Alex, do you think the PPC KVM code should be forced to 0 on success, or is >>> there any value to the expanded the return codes (and updating api.txt) for >>> varying kinds of positive success? >> >> I don't think it's worth the potential ABI breakage to change the current behavior :). Even if we did change it, you would still have to touch kvm tool to work with older kernels. > > Well it deviates from api.txt, so please fix one or the other. Hrm - let me check all users. Maybe we can change the return argument. Will do when I'm back on a keyboard ;). Alex > -- 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
