On Monday 07 January 2008 04:33:53 Glauber de Oliveira Costa wrote: > On Dec 25, 2007 9:54 PM, Rusty Russell <rusty@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > 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? I'm happy with a domino effect. I don't want to see lg->vcpus[0] *anywhere* though, because it's non-futureproof. When I looked through these patches it seems to me that we should accept that vcpu is now the basic guest unit, and lg exists to serve it. Otherwise I think you can see the bones of the old UP code poking through, and that's ugly. Thanks! Rusty. _______________________________________________ Virtualization mailing list Virtualization@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.linux-foundation.org/mailman/listinfo/virtualization
