From: Hollis B. <ho...@us...> - 2007-11-08 20:58:14
|
On Thu, 2007-11-08 at 15:21 +0800, Zhang, Xiantao wrote: > @@ -890,7 +890,7 @@ static int kvm_vm_ioctl_create_vcpu(struct kvm > *kvm, > int n) > if (!valid_vcpu(n)) > return -EINVAL; > > - vcpu = kvm_x86_ops->vcpu_create(kvm, n); > + vcpu = kvm_arch_vcpu_create(kvm, n); > if (IS_ERR(vcpu)) > return PTR_ERR(vcpu); > > @@ -900,7 +900,7 @@ static int kvm_vm_ioctl_create_vcpu(struct kvm > *kvm, > int n) > BUG_ON((unsigned long)&vcpu->host_fx_image & 0xF); > > vcpu_load(vcpu); > - r = kvm_x86_ops->vcpu_reset(vcpu); > + r = kvm_arch_vcpu_reset(vcpu); > if (r == 0) > r = kvm_mmu_setup(vcpu); > vcpu_put(vcpu); > @@ -933,7 +933,7 @@ mmu_unload: > vcpu_put(vcpu); > > free_vcpu: > - kvm_x86_ops->vcpu_free(vcpu); > + kvm_arch_vcpu_free(vcpu); > return r; > } Have a look at the patch I posted on Wednesday: "[PATCH 2 of 2] RFC: Create kvm_arch_vcpu_create()". kvm_arch_vcpu_create() will actually encompass more logic from kvm_vm_ioctl_create_vcpu(), and once you do that, kvm_arch_vcpu_reset() doesn't need to exist (which will also make Carsten happy). -- Hollis Blanchard IBM Linux Technology Center |