Dor Laor wrote:
> On Wed, 2008-03-12 at 12:38 -0500, Anthony Liguori wrote:
>
>> Part of the feedback we received from Fabrice about the KVM patches
>> for QEMU
>> is that we should create a separate device for the in-kernel APIC to
>> avoid
>> having lots of if (kvm_enabled()) within the APIC code that were
>> difficult to
>> understand why there were needed.
>>
>> This patch separates the in-kernel PIT into a separate device. It
>> also
>> introduces some configure logic to only compile in support for the
>> in-kernel
>> PIT if it's available.
>>
>> The result of this is that we now only need a single if
>> (kvm_enabled()) to
>> determine which device to use. Besides making it more upstream
>> friendly, I
>> think this makes the code much easier to understand.
>>
>>
>
> Seems like a good idea.
>
> [snip]
> ..
>
>
>
>
>> +static void pit_reset(void *opaque)
>> +{
>> + PITState *pit = opaque;
>> + PITChannelState *s;
>> + int i;
>> +
>> + for(i = 0;i < 3; i++) {
>> + s = &pit->channels[i];
>> + s->mode = 3;
>> + s->gate = (i != 2);
>> + pit_load_count(s, 0);
>> + }
>> +}
>> +
>>
>
> Seems like pit_reset won't change the in-kernel pit state.
>
Yeah, that seemed suspicious to me too. I didn't want to change the
existing behavior though for fear of introducing regressions. Perhaps
Sheng can comment on whether it's necessary to even have a reset handler
in userspace?
Regards,
Anthony Liguori
> Actually this should handled as a part of more general reset ioctl to
> all of kvm's in-kernel devices.
>
> Cheers,
> Dor
>
>
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
This SF.net email is sponsored by: Microsoft
Defy all challenges. Microsoft(R) Visual Studio 2008.
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
