[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <1154935648.7642.29.camel@localhost.localdomain>
Date: Mon, 07 Aug 2006 17:27:27 +1000
From: Rusty Russell <rusty@...tcorp.com.au>
To: Andi Kleen <ak@....de>
Cc: virtualization@...ts.osdl.org, 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
On Mon, 2006-08-07 at 08:20 +0200, Andi Kleen wrote:
> > > 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.
Actually, I just figured out a neat way to do this without having to
handle all the cases by hand. I'll try it and get back to you...
> > 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
I don't want to rule out patching based on location (reg lifetime etc),
but there's definitely room for combining these two. Good point.
Thanks!
Rusty.
--
Help! Save Australia from the worst of the DMCA: http://linux.org.au/law
-
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