[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20070106070807.GA11232@elte.hu>
Date: Sat, 6 Jan 2007 08:08:07 +0100
From: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
To: Rusty Russell <rusty@...tcorp.com.au>
Cc: Zachary Amsden <zach@...are.com>,
Jeremy Fitzhardinge <jeremy@...source.com>,
Chris Wright <chrisw@...s-sol.org>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...l.org>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Arjan van de Ven <arjan@...radead.org>,
Adrian Bunk <bunk@...sta.de>
Subject: Re: [patch] paravirt: isolate module ops
* Rusty Russell <rusty@...tcorp.com.au> wrote:
> diff -r 48f31ae5d7b5 arch/i386/kernel/paravirt.c
> --- a/arch/i386/kernel/paravirt.c Sat Jan 06 10:32:24 2007 +1100
> +++ b/arch/i386/kernel/paravirt.c Sat Jan 06 17:23:12 2007 +1100
> @@ -596,6 +596,154 @@ static int __init print_banner(void)
> return 0;
> }
> core_initcall(print_banner);
> +
> +unsigned long paravirt_save_flags(void)
> +{
> + return paravirt_ops.save_fl();
> +}
> +EXPORT_SYMBOL(paravirt_save_flags);
ok, i like this one too - i agree that it's better than mine because it
isolates on a per-API level not on a per-lowlevel-paravirt-op level. But
this doesnt do the most crutial step: the removal of the paravirt_ops
export. Without that the module build test is pointless.
btw., your patch does not apply to current -git - could you please
rebase this patch to the head of your queue so that upstream can pick it
up?
Ingo
-
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