Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH V3] Guest stop notification

[Marcelo Tosatti]

On Sat, Dec 03, 2011 at 12:45:51PM +0100, Jan Kiszka wrote:
> >> I was referring to the relation between the IOCTL and kvmclock, but
> >> IOCTL vs. kvm_run.
> >>
> >> Jan
> > 
> > Ah, OK. Yes, we better characterize it as KVMCLOCK specific (a generic
> > "guest is paused" command is not the scope of this patch).
> > 
> > So appending KVMCLOCK_ to the ioctl definitions would make that more
> > explicit.
> 
> IMHO, that would move things in the wrong direction. The IOCTL in itself
> has _nothing_ to do with kvmclock. It's just that its x86 backend is
> implemented on top of that infrastructure. For me the IOCTL is pretty
> generic, can be backed by kvmclock, but need not be on all future archs.
> 
> Jan

I do not see the need to lift this infrastructure to arch independent
status at the moment, without clear semantics on that arch independent
level.

So I am fine with the current GUEST_PAUSED naming (which can later be
extended with GUEST_RESUMED etc, if necessary, for use by other archs
for example), and implementation in hw/kvmclock.c.