[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <44EC1563.90206@vmware.com>
Date: Wed, 23 Aug 2006 01:44:19 -0700
From: Zachary Amsden <zach@...are.com>
To: Arjan van de Ven <arjan@...radead.org>
Cc: Andi Kleen <ak@...e.de>, virtualization@...ts.osdl.org,
Jeremy Fitzhardinge <jeremy@...p.org>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...l.org>,
Chris Wright <chrisw@...s-sol.org>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] paravirt.h
Arjan van de Ven wrote:
>> Since this code is so rather, um, custom, I was going to reimplement
>> stop_machine in the module.
>>
>
> that sounds like a big mistake. I assume you want your VMI module to be
> part of mainline for one.
>
> And this is the sort of thing that if we want to support it, we better
> support it inside the main kernel, eg provide an api to modules to use
> it, rather than having each module hack their own....
>
Yes, after discussion with Rusty, it appears that beefing up
stop_machine_run is the right way to go. And it has benefits for
non-paravirt code as well, such as allowing plug-in kprobes or oprofile
extension modules to be loaded without having to deal with a debug
exception or NMI during module load/unload.
Thanks,
Zach
-
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