Re: [PATCH 2/2][RFC] Kernel changes for HPET legacy mode (v7)

2009-06-23 Thread Jan Kiszka
Beth Kon wrote: > Avi Kivity wrote: >> On 06/22/2009 12:14 PM, Jan Kiszka wrote: > Hmm, stead of introducing a new pair of singe-purpose IOCTLs, why not > add KVM_GET/SET_PIT2 which exchanges an extended kvm_pit_state2. And > that struct should also include some flags field and enough p

Re: [PATCH 2/2][RFC] Kernel changes for HPET legacy mode (v7)

2009-06-22 Thread Beth Kon
Avi Kivity wrote: On 06/22/2009 12:14 PM, Jan Kiszka wrote: Hmm, stead of introducing a new pair of singe-purpose IOCTLs, why not add KVM_GET/SET_PIT2 which exchanges an extended kvm_pit_state2. And that struct should also include some flags field and enough padding to be potentially extended ye

Re: [PATCH 2/2][RFC] Kernel changes for HPET legacy mode (v7)

2009-06-22 Thread Avi Kivity
On 06/22/2009 12:14 PM, Jan Kiszka wrote: Hmm, stead of introducing a new pair of singe-purpose IOCTLs, why not add KVM_GET/SET_PIT2 which exchanges an extended kvm_pit_state2. And that struct should also include some flags field and enough padding to be potentially extended yet again in the futu

Re: [PATCH 2/2][RFC] Kernel changes for HPET legacy mode (v7)

2009-06-22 Thread Jan Kiszka
Avi Kivity wrote: > On 06/18/2009 10:04 PM, Jan Kiszka wrote: >> Hmm, stead of introducing a new pair of singe-purpose IOCTLs, why not >> add KVM_GET/SET_PIT2 which exchanges an extended kvm_pit_state2. And >> that struct should also include some flags field and enough padding to >> be potentially

Re: [PATCH 2/2][RFC] Kernel changes for HPET legacy mode (v7)

2009-06-22 Thread Avi Kivity
On 06/18/2009 10:04 PM, Jan Kiszka wrote: Hmm, stead of introducing a new pair of singe-purpose IOCTLs, why not add KVM_GET/SET_PIT2 which exchanges an extended kvm_pit_state2. And that struct should also include some flags field and enough padding to be potentially extended yet again in the futu

Re: [PATCH 2/2][RFC] Kernel changes for HPET legacy mode (v7)

2009-06-19 Thread Beth Kon
Jan Kiszka wrote: Beth Kon wrote: When kvm is in hpet_legacy_mode, the hpet is providing the timer interrupt and the pit should not be. So in legacy mode, the pit timer is destroyed, but the *state* of the pit is maintained. So if kvm or the guest tries to modify the state of the pit, this m

Re: [PATCH 2/2][RFC] Kernel changes for HPET legacy mode (v7)

2009-06-18 Thread Jan Kiszka
Beth Kon wrote: > When kvm is in hpet_legacy_mode, the hpet is providing the > timer interrupt and the pit should not be. So in legacy mode, the pit timer is > destroyed, but the *state* of the pit is maintained. So if kvm or the guest > tries to modify the state of the pit, this modification is a