Avi Kivity wrote: > Anthony Liguori wrote: > >> Dor Laor wrote: >> >> >>>> Hi all, >>>> >>>> I've finally started looking at Dor's git tree, and it struck me >>>> >>>> >>>> >>> that >>> >>> >>> >>>> it conflicts with Anthony's hypercall patches. FWIW I like Anthony's >>>> patching thing, and don't really care about arg order. It'd be nice if >>>> we could pull in the same direction tho 8) >>>> >>>> Thanks, >>>> Rusty. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>> Good news you're looking at my tree, since the forum I didn't do much >>> since I had to catch up some gazlion other tasks, never the less >>> starting on Sunday I'm back again. >>> >>> Actually, I wanted to rebase my hypercalls over Anhtony's too (except >>> for allowing userspace handling). >>> >>> >> I thought we discussed just providing a signaling message to userspace >> for virtio? It's not strictly necessary to expose hypercalls to >> userspace in order to implement a virtio backend in userspace. >> >> >> > > Yes, that's what I'd like to see too. Signal a channel. > > First, I though that this http://www.mail-archive.com/kvm-devel@lists.sourceforge.net/msg06230.html was your latest opinion. Second, regardless of the channel signal notification, there are still real necessities for userspace hypercall handling: 1. For virtio drivers there is also registration hypercall for passing the shared memory pfns. Sure there are other possibilities, but why limit ourselves? 2. For other purposes such as a balloon driver, a deflate/inflate hypercalls are needed. Although for x86 mmio/pio can be used but this is not compatible with other architectures.
Regards & thanks for the patch resend, Dor ------------------------------------------------------------------------- This SF.net email is sponsored by: Microsoft Defy all challenges. Microsoft(R) Visual Studio 2005. http://clk.atdmt.com/MRT/go/vse0120000070mrt/direct/01/ _______________________________________________ kvm-devel mailing list kvm-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/kvm-devel
