On 10.02.2012, at 00:43, Scott Wood wrote:
> On 02/09/2012 05:23 PM, Alexander Graf wrote:
>> How about we return 1 for kvm_arch_vcpu_in_guest_mode() on !x86
>> always, just like it's done today basically? Then we can worry about
>> needless IPIs later and don't regress from the respective current
>> kick implementations.
>
> And perhaps call the function kvm_arch_vcpu_maybe_in_guest_mode() to
> avoid confusion.
#define MAYBE_IN_GUEST_MODE 2
int kvm_arch_vcpu_in_guest_mode()
{
return MAYBE_IN_GUEST_MODE;
}
:)
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
