Re: [RFC] Stable kvm userspace interface

Jeff Garzik wrote:

Can we please avoid adding a ton of new ioctls? ioctls inevitably require 64-bit compat code for certain architectures, whereas sysfs/procfs does not.

I don't see how the procfs or sysfs models fit kvm. wrt compat code, the current kvm abi (also ioctl based) is 32/64 bit safe without compat code, and I certainly don't intend to break it.

--
error compiling committee.c: too many arguments to function

-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [email protected]
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/

---

• References:
  • [RFC] Stable kvm userspace interface
    • From: Avi Kivity <[email protected]>
  • Re: [RFC] Stable kvm userspace interface
    • From: Jeff Garzik <[email protected]>

• Prev by Date: Re: [PATCH 1/3] atiixp.c: remove unused code
• Next by Date: Re: [PATCH] fix-flush_workqueue-vs-cpu_dead-race-update
• Previous by thread: Re: [kvm-devel] [RFC] Stable kvm userspace interface
• Next by thread: Re: [kvm-devel] [RFC] Stable kvm userspace interface
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread

[Index of Archives]     [Kernel Newbies]     [Netfilter]     [Bugtraq]     [Photo]     [Stuff]     [Gimp]     [Yosemite News]     [MIPS Linux]     [ARM Linux]     [Linux Security]     [Linux RAID]     [Video 4 Linux]     [Linux for the blind]     [Linux Resources]