On Sat, Dec 03, 2011 at 12:45:51PM +0100, Jan Kiszka wrote: > >> I was referring to the relation between the IOCTL and kvmclock, but > >> IOCTL vs. kvm_run. > >> > >> Jan > > > > Ah, OK. Yes, we better characterize it as KVMCLOCK specific (a generic > > "guest is paused" command is not the scope of this patch). > > > > So appending KVMCLOCK_ to the ioctl definitions would make that more > > explicit. > > IMHO, that would move things in the wrong direction. The IOCTL in itself > has _nothing_ to do with kvmclock. It's just that its x86 backend is > implemented on top of that infrastructure. For me the IOCTL is pretty > generic, can be backed by kvmclock, but need not be on all future archs. > > Jan
I do not see the need to lift this infrastructure to arch independent status at the moment, without clear semantics on that arch independent level. So I am fine with the current GUEST_PAUSED naming (which can later be extended with GUEST_RESUMED etc, if necessary, for use by other archs for example), and implementation in hw/kvmclock.c.
