Zhang, Xiantao wrote: > Avi Kivity wrote: > >> Zhang, Xiantao wrote: >> >>> Avi Kivity wrote: >>> >>> >>>> Christian Ehrhardt wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>>> Hi Xiantao, >>>>> it looks good to me to move kvm_vcpu_cache out to the x86 specific >>>>> code >>>>> >>>>> >>>> Why is that? Do other archs not want kvm_vcpu_cache, or is it just >>>> the alignment? >>>> >>>> >>> At lease we didn't fall across the similar requirements about such >>> alignment issues in IA64. >>> >>> >> What I mean is, other archs do require kvm_vcpu_cache (without the >> alignment), so why move the code? Just make the alignment arch >> dependent with a #define. >> > > I think IA64 TOTALLY doen't need this logic, so do the move:) > >
Ah, I see. It isn't just the alignment. How do you allocate kvm_vcpu, then? What about s390 and powerpc? I imagine they don't have an alignment issue, but do they have a totally unique way of allocating vcpus as well? Maybe we should just #ifndef CONFIG_IA64 (or #ifdef CONFIG_HAVE_SPECIAL_VCPU_ALLOC) this bit instead of duplicating it for s390 and ppc. -- Do not meddle in the internals of kernels, for they are subtle and quick to panic. ------------------------------------------------------------------------- SF.Net email is sponsored by: The Future of Linux Business White Paper from Novell. From the desktop to the data center, Linux is going mainstream. Let it simplify your IT future. http://altfarm.mediaplex.com/ad/ck/8857-50307-18918-4 _______________________________________________ kvm-devel mailing list kvm-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/kvm-devel
