[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <d120d5000702080643k453e73e3h6d481f9d65a4e856@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 8 Feb 2007 09:43:56 -0500
From: "Dmitry Torokhov" <dmitry.torokhov@...il.com>
To: "Rusty Russell" <rusty@...tcorp.com.au>
Cc: "Pavel Machek" <pavel@....cz>, "Zachary Amsden" <zach@...are.com>,
"Andi Kleen" <ak@....de>,
"Linux Kernel Mailing List" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
"Andrew Morton" <akpm@...l.org>,
"Jeremy Fitzhardinge" <jeremy@...p.org>,
"Chris Wright" <chrisw@...s-sol.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 9/11] Panic delay fix
On 2/7/07, Rusty Russell <rusty@...tcorp.com.au> wrote:
> On Wed, 2007-02-07 at 12:35 +0000, Pavel Machek wrote:
> > Ugh, it sounds like paravirt is more b0rken then I thought. It should
> > always to the proper delay, then replace those udelays that are not
> > needed on virtualized hardware with something else.
> >
> > Just magically defining udelay into nop is broken.
>
> We'd have to audit and figure out what udelays are for hardware and
> which are not, but the evidence is that the vast majority of them are
> for hardware and not needed for virtualization.
>
> Changing udelay to "hardware_udelay" or something all over the kernel
> would have delayed the paravirt_ops merge by an infinite amount 8)
>
However I am not really fond of idea of adding constructs like this
all over the code:
#define USE_REAL_TIME_DELAY_I_REALLY_MEAN_IT_THIS_TIME_I_SWEAR
as the time passes... Drivers should be blissfully ignorant of being
run on virtual hardware.
--
Dmitry
-
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