[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <44D6D60A.5040108@goop.org>
Date: Sun, 06 Aug 2006 22:56:26 -0700
From: Jeremy Fitzhardinge <jeremy@...p.org>
To: Andi Kleen <ak@....de>
CC: virtualization@...ts.osdl.org, Andrew Morton <akpm@...l.org>,
Chris Wright <chrisw@...s-sol.org>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 4/4] x86 paravirt_ops: binary patching infrastructure
Andi Kleen wrote:
>>
>> +#ifdef CONFIG_PARAVIRT
>> +void apply_paravirt(struct paravirt_patch *start, struct paravirt_patch *end)
>>
>
> It would be better to merge this with the existing LOCK prefix patching
> or perhaps the normal alternative() patcher (is there any particular
> reason you can't use it?)
>
> Three alternative patching mechanisms just seems to be too many
The difference is that every hypervisor wants its own patched
instruction sequence, which may require a specialized patching
mechanism. If you're simply patching in calls, then it isn't a big
deal, but you may also want to patch in real inlined code for some
operations (like sti/cli equivalents). The alternatives are to allow
each backend to deal with its own patching (perhaps with common
functions abstracted out as they appear), or have a common set of
patching machinery which can deal with all users. The former seems simpler.
J
-
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/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists