linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 3/4] x86 paravirt_ops: implementation of paravirt

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-Id: <200608070739.33428.ak@muc.de>
Date:	Mon, 7 Aug 2006 07:39:33 +0200
From:	Andi Kleen <ak@....de>
To:	virtualization@...ts.osdl.org
Cc:	Rusty Russell <rusty@...tcorp.com.au>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...l.org>,
	Chris Wright <chrisw@...s-sol.org>,
	Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/4] x86 paravirt_ops: implementation of paravirt_ops

On Monday 07 August 2006 06:47, Rusty Russell wrote:
> This patch does the dumbest possible replacement of paravirtualized
> instructions: calls through a "paravirt_ops" structure.  Currently
> these are function implementations of native hardware: hypervisors
> will override the ops structure with their own variants.

You should call it HAL - that would make it clearer what it is.

I think I would prefer to patch always. Is there a particular
reason you can't do that?

-Andi

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