Gleb Natapov wrote:
@@ -130,6 +130,7 @@ struct kvm {
int nmemslots;
struct kvm_memory_slot memslots[KVM_MEMORY_SLOTS +
KVM_PRIVATE_MEM_SLOTS];
+ struct kvm_vcpu *bsp_vcpu;
struct kvm_vcpu *vcpus[KVM_MAX_VCPUS];
struct
On Mon, 2009-06-08 at 14:20 +0300, Avi Kivity wrote:
Gleb Natapov wrote:
@@ -130,6 +130,7 @@ struct kvm {
int nmemslots;
struct kvm_memory_slot memslots[KVM_MEMORY_SLOTS +
KVM_PRIVATE_MEM_SLOTS];
+ struct kvm_vcpu *bsp_vcpu;
struct
Hollis Blanchard wrote:
please wrap with HAVE_KVM_IRQCHIP (which is a close approximation).
I don't know about that... I've definitely thought about implementing an
in-kernel PIC for PowerPC. (That will make more sense as an optimization
once the processors with hypervisor support start
Avi Kivity wrote:
Gleb Natapov wrote:
@@ -130,6 +130,7 @@ struct kvm {
int nmemslots;
struct kvm_memory_slot memslots[KVM_MEMORY_SLOTS +
KVM_PRIVATE_MEM_SLOTS]; +struct kvm_vcpu *bsp_vcpu;
struct kvm_vcpu *vcpus[KVM_MAX_VCPUS];
struct list_head vm_list;
struct
Zhang, Xiantao wrote:
The concept of bsp (boot processor) is limited IIUC to x86 and ia64,
so please wrap with HAVE_KVM_IRQCHIP (which is a close approximation).
Arch maintainers, please confirm.
Yes, vcpu[0] should be the bsp for ia64 guests, even if this is not always true for real
