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

Jes Sorensen wrote:
> 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 :-)

I just have the code of userspace for enabling live migration, and it should be a bit old.  Maybe you can add the ioctl from the scratch to support the stack's save&restore, and If you need the userspace code, I will post it to u. :)
Xiantao