On 09.09.2013, at 11:38, Michael Neuling wrote: > Alexander Graf <agraf@xxxxxxx> wrote: > >> >> On 09.09.2013, at 09:28, Michael Neuling wrote: >> >>>> At present, PR KVM and BookE KVM does multiple copies of FP and >>>> related state because of the way that they use the arrays in the >>>> thread_struct as an intermediate staging post for the state. They do >>>> this so that they can use the existing system functions for loading >>>> and saving state, and so that they can keep guest state in the CPU >>>> registers while executing general kernel code. >>>> >>>> This patch series reorganizes things so that KVM and the main kernel >>>> use the same representation for FP/VMX/VSX state, and so that guest >>>> state can be loaded/save directly from/to the vcpu struct instead of >>>> having to go via the thread_struct. This simplifies things and should >>>> be a little faster. >>>> >>>> This series is against Alex Graf's kvm-ppc-queue branch plus my recent >>>> series of 23 patches to make PR and HV KVM coexist. >>> >>> This is great! >>> >>> Alex, can you pull this into your tree? >> >> I never apply RFC patches if I can avoid it. Paul, if you think >> they're ready for inclusion, please repost them as actual patches. > > Arrh, good point. I'll talk to paulus about reposting them. > > Your kvm-ppc-queue branch on github seems to be based on 3.11-rc1. Is > that the tree we should be aiming for currently? If kvm/next is newer, please base them on that for the meantime. I'll bump it up a few days after kvm/next. 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
