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: <200608070820.09059.ak@muc.de>
Date:	Mon, 7 Aug 2006 08:20:09 +0200
From:	Andi Kleen <ak@....de>
To:	virtualization@...ts.osdl.org
Cc:	Rusty Russell <rusty@...tcorp.com.au>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...l.org>,
	Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Chris Wright <chrisw@...s-sol.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/4] x86 paravirt_ops: implementation of paravirt_ops


> > I think I would prefer to patch always. Is there a particular
> > reason you can't do that?
> 
> We could patch all the indirect calls into direct calls, but I don't
> think it's worth bothering: most simply don't matter.

I still think it would be better to patch always.

> Each backend wants a different patch, so alternative() doesn't cut it.
> We could look at generalizing alternative() I guess, but it works fine
> so I didn't want to touch it.

You could at least use a common function (with the replacement passed
in as argument) for lock prefixes and your stuff

-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/