On 10/22/2009 11:11 AM, Alexander Graf wrote:
Doesn't this break backward compatibility by changing the structure?
Best to put it after the union (and as a copy, so userspace that
expects the previous location still works). If you're reading it
from the kernel, also need a way to tell the kernel which copy to
read from.
Also advertise with a KVM_CAP.
I don't think we need to go through the hassle here. There is
effectively no user of that code for now and the ABI is considered
unstable.
At the very least we need a KVM_CAP so qemu knows to fail on older kernels.
I'd also appreciate an explanation of what this is all about.
Explanation in the code or explanation in an email reply?
email. I assume s390 hackers would understand why the psw needs to be
exposed to qemu on every exit. This is mostly for my personal interest.
--
error compiling committee.c: too many arguments to function
