>> I don't see your concern here. The whole lapic3 is work in
> progress, isn't it? Why should we maintain an `old' interface?
> Also, as in the second patch, no userspace change is required.
>>
>
> I was thinking about maintenance post 2.6.24.
>
> However, I'm not opposed to the second patch -
He, Qing wrote:
>
>> -Original Message-
>> From: Avi Kivity [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>> Sent: 2007年8月2日 19:58
>> To: He, Qing
>> Cc: kvm-devel
>> Subject: Re: [kvm-devel] [RFC] lapic3: cleanup for save/restore data
>> structure
>-Original Message-
>From: Avi Kivity [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>Sent: 2007年8月2日 19:58
>To: He, Qing
>Cc: kvm-devel
>Subject: Re: [kvm-devel] [RFC] lapic3: cleanup for save/restore data structure
>of
>in-kernel irqchips
>
>He, Qing wrote:
>> Hi,
>&
He, Qing wrote:
> Hi,
> The argument of in-kernel irqchip save/restore IOCTL uses a
> separate data structure (struct kvm_irqchip and struct kvm_ioctl_pic in
> include/linux/kvm.h) different from functional data structure (struct
> kvm_pic_state and struct kvm_ioapic in driver/kvm/irq.h), thi
Hi,
The argument of in-kernel irqchip save/restore IOCTL uses a
separate data structure (struct kvm_irqchip and struct kvm_ioctl_pic in
include/linux/kvm.h) different from functional data structure (struct
kvm_pic_state and struct kvm_ioapic in driver/kvm/irq.h), this is
because while most
