On Sun, Mar 10, 2013 at 06:19:07PM +0100, Paolo Bonzini wrote: > Il 10/03/2013 16:35, Gleb Natapov ha scritto: > >> > However, it would effectively redefine the meaning of > >> > KVM_MP_STATE_INIT_RECEIVED and KVM_MP_STATE_SIPI_RECEIVED, respectively > >> > to KVM_MP_STATE_WAIT_FOR_SIPI and KVM_MP_STATE_RESETTING. I wasn't sure > >> > if this is considered an API change (personally, I would treat it as one). > >> > > > If it is kernel module internal it definitely is not API change. > > INIT/SIPI handling is a bit ad-hoc right now anyway as Jan noticed. For > > instance INIT does not really resets VCPU. Only after SIPI it is really > > reset, so KVM_MP_STATE_SIPI_RECEIVED is really KVM_MP_STATE_RESET_ME_RIGHT_NOW > > state. > > Yeah, and the current definition is ambiguous (without hypervisor > patches, there's no way to use it as the names would suggest), so > perhaps the right thing to do is to rename the states (old names kept > for backwards compatibility only) and work from there. > I do not see how renaming clarify things. From userspace point of view KVM_MP_STATE_SIPI_RECEIVED does not exists. If AP is hard reset userspase makes it UNINIT, if soft reset it makes it INIT_RECEIVED, if BSP it makes it running no matter what type of reset. -- Gleb. -- 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
