On 01/30/2012 05:32 PM, Eric B Munson wrote: > > > > Can you point me to the discussion that moved this to be a vm ioctl? In > > general vm ioctls that do things for all vcpus are racy, like here. > > You're accessing variables that are protected by the vcpu mutex, and not > > taking the mutex (nor can you, since it is held while the guest is > > running, unlike most kernel mutexes). > > > > Jan Kiszka suggested that becuase there isn't a use case for notifying > individual vcpus (can vcpu's be paused individually? They can, though the guest will grind to a halt very soon. > ) that it makes more sense > to have a vm ioctl. > > http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.comp.emulators.qemu/131624 > > If the per vcpu ioctl is the right choice I can resend those patches. The races are solvable but I think it's easier in userspace. It's also more flexible, though I don't really see a use for this flexibility. -- error compiling committee.c: too many arguments to function -- 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
