On Wed, Jun 10, 2015 at 01:47:42PM -0500, Wei Huang wrote:
> On 06/10/2015 01:05 PM, Joerg Roedel wrote:
> > So how about putting the pmu-ops directly into the kvm_x86_ops as a
> > (const) member,
> I like this idea better. Here is the (expanded) design:
>
> 1) add const "struct kvm_pmu_ops *pmu_
On 06/10/2015 01:05 PM, Joerg Roedel wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 10, 2015 at 11:43:20AM -0500, Wei Huang wrote:
>> On 06/10/2015 05:12 AM, Joerg Roedel wrote:
>>> On Fri, Jun 05, 2015 at 01:20:14AM -0400, Wei Huang wrote:
+
+ struct kvm_pmu_ops *(*get_pmu_ops)(void);
>>>
>>> Can't you just se
On Wed, Jun 10, 2015 at 11:43:20AM -0500, Wei Huang wrote:
> On 06/10/2015 05:12 AM, Joerg Roedel wrote:
> > On Fri, Jun 05, 2015 at 01:20:14AM -0400, Wei Huang wrote:
> >> +
> >> + struct kvm_pmu_ops *(*get_pmu_ops)(void);
> >
> > Can't you just set kvm_pmu_ops in svm.c and vmx.c and save this
>
On 06/10/2015 05:12 AM, Joerg Roedel wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 05, 2015 at 01:20:14AM -0400, Wei Huang wrote:
>> +
>> +struct kvm_pmu_ops *(*get_pmu_ops)(void);
>
> Can't you just set kvm_pmu_ops in svm.c and vmx.c and save this
> call-back? Besides that the patch looks good.
Hi Joerg,
Thanks fo
On Fri, Jun 05, 2015 at 01:20:14AM -0400, Wei Huang wrote:
> +
> + struct kvm_pmu_ops *(*get_pmu_ops)(void);
Can't you just set kvm_pmu_ops in svm.c and vmx.c and save this
call-back? Besides that the patch looks good.
Joerg
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscri
This patch splits existing vPMU code into a common vPMU interface (pmc.c)
and Intel specific vPMU code (pmu_intel.c) using the following steps:
- Part of arechitectural vPMU code is extracted and moved to pmu_intel.c
file. They are hooked up with the newly-defined intel_pmu_ops, which will
be
