On 09.12.2011 12:32, Alexander Graf wrote:
+KVM_CAP_UCONTROL
KVM_S390_CAP_UCONTROL
I'm happy either way. It seemed to me that the discussion between Avi
and Sasha for V2 of the patch series on this naming has concluded to
KVM_CAP_UCONTROL/KVM_VM_UCONTROL without _S390 in it.
KVM_ENABLE_CAP(KVM_S390_CAP_UCONTROL)? It doesn't look like you can't switch from kernel-controlled to user controlled mode during runtime. All you need to do is remove the gmap again and you should be fine, no?
This was the case via an ioctl KVM_S390_ENABLE_UCONTROL in version 1.
Avi pointed out some possible race conditions with that, and recommended
to switch it via KVM_CREATE_VM. I'm happy either way, just let me know
what's prefered.
We do something similar on PPC where we just call ENABLE_CAP to switch to PAPR mode. If otherwise too difficult you can for example also define that the ENABLE_CAP has to happen before your first VCPU_RUN.
Code looks to me like you do ENABLE_CAP per vcpu on ppc (chapter 4.37
of api.txt agrees with that). We need something per VM, we cannot switch
individual CPUs between ucontrol/regular because with ucontrol the VM
does not have a common address space.
--
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
