Re: [RFC PATCH 0/3] generic hypercall support

[Chris Wright]

* Gregory Haskins (gregory.haskins@xxxxxxxxx) wrote:
> So you would never have someone making a generic
> hypercall(KVM_HC_MMU_OP).  I agree.

Which is why I think the interface proposal you've made is wrong.  There's
already hypercall interfaces w/ specific ABI and semantic meaning (which
are typically called directly/indirectly from an existing pv op hook).

But a free-form hypercall(unsigned long nr, unsigned long *args, size_t count)
means hypercall number and arg list must be the same in order for code
to call hypercall() in a hypervisor agnostic way.

The pv_ops level need to have semantic meaning, not a free form
hypercall multiplexor.

thanks,
-chris
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/