Am Dienstag, 29. Juli 2008 schrieb Avi Kivity:
They all start with 0 AFAIK (kvm also starts with 0, it just wants it to
be a special slot).
Now my brain hurts
Ok, so I read this as: ppc, ia64 and s390 can start with slot 0 and it is not a
special slot.
On x86 slot 0 is special, if
*
Christian Borntraeger wrote:
Am Dienstag, 29. Juli 2008 schrieb Avi Kivity:
They all start with 0 AFAIK (kvm also starts with 0, it just wants it to
be a special slot).
Now my brain hurts
Ok, so I read this as: ppc, ia64 and s390 can start with slot 0 and it is not a
special
Avi Kivity wrote:
Christian Borntraeger wrote:
Am Dienstag, 29. Juli 2008 schrieb Avi Kivity:
They all start with 0 AFAIK (kvm also starts with 0, it just wants
it to be a special slot).
Now my brain hurts
Ok, so I read this as: ppc, ia64 and s390 can start with slot 0 and
it is
Christian Borntraeger wrote:
Something like that? But then I get the following warning on non-x86:
libkvm.c:77: warning: 'kvm_supports_set_tss_addr' defined but not used
Should I mask the wrapper with config x86 as well?
If we rename the helper, kvm_wants_special_memslot_0() (reversing the
Christian Borntraeger wrote:
Am Sonntag, 27. Juli 2008 schrieb Avi Kivity:
This is really a no-op, since s390 will nack a KVM_CAP_SET_TSS_ADDR
query. Of course, the change is an improvement.
@@ -92,8 +92,11 @@ int get_free_slot(kvm_context_t kvm)
if (tss_ext 0)
Am Sonntag, 27. Juli 2008 schrieb Avi Kivity:
This is really a no-op, since s390 will nack a KVM_CAP_SET_TSS_ADDR
query. Of course, the change is an improvement.
@@ -92,8 +92,11 @@ int get_free_slot(kvm_context_t kvm)
if (tss_ext 0)
i = 0;
else
+#if
Christian Borntraeger wrote:
Hello Avi,
seems that I mixed up the slot initialization, instead of making the first
slot always 0 I made it always 1. Lets go back to Carstens variant, since I
dont like nested ifdefs. The compiler will remove the dead code anyway.
Signed-off-by: Christian
Hello Avi,
seems that I mixed up the slot initialization, instead of making the first
slot always 0 I made it always 1. Lets go back to Carstens variant, since I
dont like nested ifdefs. The compiler will remove the dead code anyway.
Signed-off-by: Christian Borntraeger [EMAIL PROTECTED]
---
