Carsten Otte wrote:
> Zhang, Xiantao wrote:
>> Moving KVM_CHECK_EXTENSION case to arch, since different archs should
>> have different capabilities.
> I believe we want to keep the existence of the ioctl
> KVM_CHECK_EXTENSION common. Just the extension flags should be arch
> specific. This patch h
Zhang, Xiantao wrote:
> Carsten Otte wrote:
>
>> Zhang, Xiantao wrote:
>>
>>> Moving KVM_CHECK_EXTENSION case to arch, since different archs should
>>> have different capabilities.
>>>
>> I believe we want to keep the existence of the ioctl
>> KVM_CHECK_EXTENSION common. Just the ex
Zhang, Xiantao wrote:
> How about attached patch? Agree to keep this ioctl in common, and
> instead define an arch-specific function in x86.
Yea, that looks good to me.
Acked-by: Carsten Otte <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
-
This SF.net
Zhang, Xiantao wrote:
> Moving KVM_CHECK_EXTENSION case to arch, since different archs should
> have different capabilities.
I believe we want to keep the existence of the ioctl
KVM_CHECK_EXTENSION common. Just the extension flags should be arch
specific. This patch has the danger, that we migh
Zhang, Xiantao wrote:
> Moving KVM_CHECK_EXTENSION case to arch, since different archs should
> have different capabilities.
Acked-by: Carsten Otte <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
-
This SF.net email is sponsored by: Splunk Inc.
Still gr
Moving KVM_CHECK_EXTENSION case to arch, since different archs should
have different capabilities.
Xiantao
0001-Move-KVM_CHECK_EXTENSION-case-to-arch-since-differe.patch
Description: 0001-Move-KVM_CHECK_EXTENSION-case-to-arch-since-differe.patch
--
