Re: [PATCH 0/16] lguest: introduce vcpu structure
On Monday 07 January 2008 04:33:53 Glauber de Oliveira Costa wrote: > On Dec 25, 2007 9:54 PM, Rusty Russell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > My only question is whether we should go further and vpu-ify routines > > like lgread and kill_guest, so that we can avoid more "lg" temporary > > variables... > > Essentially, they don't need it, because they only touch > globally-visible variables (visible to the guest). > So it's more of an stylish thing. Using the vcpu in the signature can > have only one harm: > It needs the caller to also have a pointer to a vcpu, so we may end up > using it everywhere, like a domino fall. > > Alternatively, in such functions that don't currently receive a vcpu > (nor they need to), we can convention to always pass > lg->vcpus[0] to lgread, kill_guest, etc. Which one do you prefer? I'm happy with a domino effect. I don't want to see lg->vcpus[0] *anywhere* though, because it's non-futureproof. When I looked through these patches it seems to me that we should accept that vcpu is now the basic guest unit, and lg exists to serve it. Otherwise I think you can see the bones of the old UP code poking through, and that's ugly. Thanks! Rusty. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: [PATCH 0/16] lguest: introduce vcpu structure
On Dec 25, 2007 9:54 PM, Rusty Russell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Friday 21 December 2007 00:33:40 Glauber de Oliveira Costa wrote: > > this patch makes room for the vcpu structure in lguest, already used in > > this very same way at lguest64. It's the first part of our plan to > > have lguest and lguest64 unified too. > > Hi Glauber! > > These patches look really solid, thanks! A few minor things, then I'll > apply them and push them for 2.6.25. Thanks for all comments. I was in vacations until today, and I'll repost a new version that address all your comments soon (that's why I'm not answering each of them individually now, have to look carefully) > My only question is whether we should go further and vpu-ify routines like > lgread and kill_guest, so that we can avoid more "lg" temporary variables... Essentially, they don't need it, because they only touch globally-visible variables (visible to the guest). So it's more of an stylish thing. Using the vcpu in the signature can have only one harm: It needs the caller to also have a pointer to a vcpu, so we may end up using it everywhere, like a domino fall. Alternatively, in such functions that don't currently receive a vcpu (nor they need to), we can convention to always pass lg->vcpus[0] to lgread, kill_guest, etc. Which one do you prefer? > > When two dogs hang out, you don't have new puppies right in the other day. > > Some time has to be elapsed. They have to grow first. In this same spirit, > > having these patches _do not_ mean smp guests can be launched (yet) > > Much more work is to come, but this is the basic infrastructure. > > OK, that made me laugh... \o/ > Thanks! > Rusty. > > -- Glauber de Oliveira Costa. "Free as in Freedom" http://glommer.net "The less confident you are, the more serious you have to act." -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: [PATCH 0/16] lguest: introduce vcpu structure
On Friday 21 December 2007 00:33:40 Glauber de Oliveira Costa wrote: > this patch makes room for the vcpu structure in lguest, already used in > this very same way at lguest64. It's the first part of our plan to > have lguest and lguest64 unified too. Hi Glauber! These patches look really solid, thanks! A few minor things, then I'll apply them and push them for 2.6.25. My only question is whether we should go further and vpu-ify routines like lgread and kill_guest, so that we can avoid more "lg" temporary variables... > When two dogs hang out, you don't have new puppies right in the other day. > Some time has to be elapsed. They have to grow first. In this same spirit, > having these patches _do not_ mean smp guests can be launched (yet) > Much more work is to come, but this is the basic infrastructure. OK, that made me laugh... Thanks! Rusty. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
