Avi Kivity <avi@xxxxxxxxxx> writes: > On 09/06/2012 06:23 PM, Peter Maydell wrote: >> On 6 September 2012 16:16, Avi Kivity <avi@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >>> (and the APIC, if treated as one-large-register) is 4k) >> >> ...so don't do that then. Trying to treat the whole APIC >> as a single "register" means you don't get any of the >> advantages of "does this kernel support this register?" >> etc. Is there some reason I'm not seeing why it would >> make sense to do it that way? > > It's just the easiest path forward. > > "one large register" is mainly useful if registers have > interdependencies. That doesn't exist in the APIC AFAIR, but it does > exist elsewhere. Another way to handle interdependencies is to defer > applying the changes until a KVM_RUN, and then evaluate them as a group. The other option is to implement KVM_SET_MULTI_REG. I have enough of an implmentation to show it's trivial, but it's needless complexity until/if we need it. Cheers, Rusty. -- 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
