Avi Kivity wrote: > Zhang, Xiantao wrote: >>> >>> x86 will continue to use kvm_x86_ops for that purposes. But other >>> archs should not. >>> >>> x86 will use both mechanisms: first, linkage will select the x86 >>> function, and then kvm_x86_ops will be used to select the >>> implementation dependent code. The two levels are very different as >>> kvm_x86_ops is very low level and x86 specific. >>> >> Hi Avi, >> Maybe linkage is a better choice. But if we need to maintain two >> different implmentation for different archs, it may introduce >> unnecessary effort. In addition, I can't figure out any >> disadvantages with function pointers, moreover, it makes source >> uniform for all architectures, though it is not very necessary. >> > > Linkage is more efficient (though I don't think we'll be able to > measure the difference) and is also the traditional way of doing > things in Linux. > > I don't see why it causes extra effort. Can you explain?
I orgirnally mean we have to wrap all functions related to kvm_x86_ops. But seems it doesn't introduce extra maintain effort, if other architectures implment these functions directly. Good method! Thanks Xiantao ------------------------------------------------------------------------- This SF.net email is sponsored by: Splunk Inc. Still grepping through log files to find problems? Stop. Now Search log events and configuration files using AJAX and a browser. Download your FREE copy of Splunk now >> http://get.splunk.com/ _______________________________________________ kvm-devel mailing list kvm-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/kvm-devel
