On Dec 25, 2007 9:54 PM, Rusty Russell <rusty@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Friday 21 December 2007 00:33:40 Glauber de Oliveira Costa wrote: > > this patch makes room for the vcpu structure in lguest, already used in > > this very same way at lguest64. It's the first part of our plan to > > have lguest and lguest64 unified too. > > Hi Glauber! > > These patches look really solid, thanks! A few minor things, then I'll > apply them and push them for 2.6.25. Thanks for all comments. I was in vacations until today, and I'll repost a new version that address all your comments soon (that's why I'm not answering each of them individually now, have to look carefully) > My only question is whether we should go further and vpu-ify routines like > lgread and kill_guest, so that we can avoid more "lg" temporary variables... Essentially, they don't need it, because they only touch globally-visible variables (visible to the guest). So it's more of an stylish thing. Using the vcpu in the signature can have only one harm: It needs the caller to also have a pointer to a vcpu, so we may end up using it everywhere, like a domino fall. Alternatively, in such functions that don't currently receive a vcpu (nor they need to), we can convention to always pass lg->vcpus[0] to lgread, kill_guest, etc. Which one do you prefer? > > When two dogs hang out, you don't have new puppies right in the other day. > > Some time has to be elapsed. They have to grow first. In this same spirit, > > having these patches _do not_ mean smp guests can be launched (yet) > > Much more work is to come, but this is the basic infrastructure. > > OK, that made me laugh... \o/ > Thanks! > Rusty. > > -- Glauber de Oliveira Costa. "Free as in Freedom" http://glommer.net "The less confident you are, the more serious you have to act." _______________________________________________ Virtualization mailing list Virtualization@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.linux-foundation.org/mailman/listinfo/virtualization
