From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Avi Kivity Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/3] kvm-s390: streamline memslot handling - rebased Date: Sun, 14 Jun 2009 15:04:40 +0300 Message-ID: <4A34E758.6000000@redhat.com> References: <1243952771-32428-1-git-send-email-ehrhardt@linux.vnet.ibm.com> <1243952771-32428-4-git-send-email-ehrhardt@linux.vnet.ibm.com> <20090605205312.GA13471@amt.cnet> <4A2CED2E.6030904@linux.vnet.ibm.com> <20090609005632.GA21096@amt.cnet> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: Christian Ehrhardt , kvm@vger.kernel.org, borntraeger@de.ibm.com, cotte@de.ibm.com, heiko.carstens@de.ibm.com, schwidefsky@de.ibm.com To: Marcelo Tosatti Return-path: Received: from mx2.redhat.com ([66.187.237.31]:47262 "EHLO mx2.redhat.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1761242AbZFNMEo (ORCPT ); Sun, 14 Jun 2009 08:04:44 -0400 In-Reply-To: <20090609005632.GA21096@amt.cnet> Sender: kvm-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: Marcelo Tosatti wrote: > >> (continued below) >> >>> Anyway, yeah, the set request / wait mechanism you implement here is >>> quite similar to the idea mentioned earlier that could be used for x86. >>> >>> Just get rid of this explicit KVM_REQ_MMU_RELOAD knowledge in >>> arch-independent code please (if you want to see this merged). >>> >>> >> I agree to lift the wait part to other archs later if needed, but as >> mentioned above I could move this to arch code to the cost of one arch >> hook more. But as also mentioned it doesn't really hurt. I agree that it >> does not need to be KVM_REQ_MMU_RELOAD specific, we could just >> walk/clear/wake all bits on that vcpu->requests variable. >> Would that be generic enough in your opinion ? >> > > Don't know. > > Avi? > I think I lost the thread here, but I'll try. Isn't the wake part make_all_vcpus_request() in kvm_main.c? The wait part could be moved to a similar generic function. -- error compiling committee.c: too many arguments to function