On 10/07/13 12:39, Alexander Graf wrote: > > On 09.07.2013, at 18:01, Christian Borntraeger wrote: > >> On 09/07/13 15:56, Dominik Dingel wrote: >>> By setting a Kconfig option, the architecture can control when >>> guest notifications will be presented by the apf backend. >>> So there is the default batch mechanism, working as before, where the vcpu thread >>> should pull in this information. On the other hand there is now the direct >>> mechanism, this will directly push the information to the guest. >>> >>> Still the vcpu thread should call check_completion to cleanup leftovers, >>> that leaves most of the common code untouched. >>> >>> Signed-off-by: Dominik Dingel <dingel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> >> >> Acked-by: Christian Borntraeger <borntraeger@xxxxxxxxxx> >> for the "why". We want to use the existing architectured interface. > > Shouldn't this be a runtime option? This is an a) or b) depending on the architecture. So making this a kconfig option is the most sane approach no? Christian -- 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
