I still do strongly agree with the general idea of this patch, and
most of the split comes out just right now. However, there is one
thing I'd like to pick on:
decache_vcpus_on_cpu should be an arch callback, and rather than
kvm_arch_vcpu_decache. There's no reason for s390 to grab locks and
Carsten Otte wrote:
I still do strongly agree with the general idea of this patch, and
most of the split comes out just right now. However, there is one
thing I'd like to pick on:
decache_vcpus_on_cpu should be an arch callback, and rather than
kvm_arch_vcpu_decache. There's no reason for
Zhang, Xiantao wrote:
Avi Kivity wrote:
Carsten Otte wrote:
I still do strongly agree with the general idea of this patch, and
most of the split comes out just right now. However, there is one
thing I'd like to pick on:
decache_vcpus_on_cpu should be an arch callback, and rather
Avi Kivity wrote:
Carsten Otte wrote:
I still do strongly agree with the general idea of this patch, and
most of the split comes out just right now. However, there is one
thing I'd like to pick on:
decache_vcpus_on_cpu should be an arch callback, and rather than
kvm_arch_vcpu_decache.
From: Zhang Xiantao [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Using kvm arch support to replace kvm_x86_ops, and make them
arch-independent.
Signed-off-by: Zhang Xiantao [EMAIL PROTECTED]
---
drivers/kvm/kvm.h | 18 +++
drivers/kvm/kvm_main.c | 78 +++---
drivers/kvm/x86.c |
