On 06/13/2012 12:30 PM, Jan Kiszka wrote:
On 2012-06-12 14:12, Alexander Graf wrote:
On 06/12/2012 02:02 PM, Christian Borntraeger wrote:
On 12/06/12 13:57, Alexander Graf wrote:
Since it lives in an s390 specific branch, the function name should probably be
called s390 specific. If we ever need another architecture to have a kvm
specific ram allocator, we can make it generic when that time comes. Until
then, let's treat s390 as the oddball it is :).
Apart from that, this approach looks a lot nicer, yes.
But then I have to have a *s390* function declared in kvm.h and your other
comment
hits me. You got me in a trap here, heh? ;-)
Ah, I see what you mean. I was thinking of having a
target-s390x/kvm_s390x.h or so. Then we could add the function
definition there and have everything nicely contained within
target-s390x only.
Jan, which approach would you think is cleaner? Make this a generic
kvm_arch callback or introduce a special kvm_s390x.h header which would
then have to be explicitly included in exec.c?
Maybe somethings like
#ifdef __s390__
else if (kvm_enabled())
new_block->host = kvm_arch_vmalloc(size)
#endif
? But I have no definitive opinion yet. I think that
- the changes to generic code should make clear that it's an s390+kvm
specialty
- actual work should be done in target-s390/kvm.c (e.g. avoid
legacy_s390_alloc)
Thinking about this a bit more, how about
} else if (!kvm_arch_vmalloc(size, &new_block->host)) {
<normal code>
}
Then the arch specific code could do the check and the implementation of
vmalloc, but only has to return -1 if we don't need it and things still
fall back to the generic code.
Alex
