Re: [patch] fix kvm_arch_vcpu_ioctl_[gs]et_regs()

Zhang, Xiantao wrote:
> Jes Sorensen wrote:
>> I am with Avi on this one - we shouldn't be passing in pointers like
>> that. Either we can increase the size of kvm_regs as you mention, but
>> it will become *huge* since the stack is 64KB, or we introduce a new
>> ioctl just to handle the stack.
>>
>> Do you think it would be a problem having the second ioctl for this? I
>> would prefer breaking it into two to avoid the kernel having to
>> allocate a 128KB chunk for kvm_regs.
> 
> Fine to me to add the ioctl, and it should make the logic clear. 
> Xiantao

Cool, I'll look into that later today, I hope. I'll base it on your old
code, but I will not be able to test it :-)

Cheers,
Jes