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

Avi Kivity wrote:
> This makes several tons of sense, but breaks backwards compatibility.  
> If I understand correctly, get/set was never used so this shouldn't matter?
> 
> I suggest reserving some space at the end of kvm_regs in case further 
> state needs to be added.

The code never worked, so it's not an issue to break backwards compat, 
but I agree. I'll add some space for future extensions.

Cheers,
Jes