[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <46C37BF6.50909@redhat.com>
Date: Wed, 15 Aug 2007 19:19:34 -0300
From: Glauber de Oliveira Costa <gcosta@...hat.com>
To: Jeremy Fitzhardinge <jeremy@...source.com>
CC: Andi Kleen <ak@...e.de>, lguest@...abs.org, shai@...lemp.com,
kiran@...lemp.com, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
virtualization@...ts.linux-foundation.org, chrisw@...s-sol.org,
anthony@...emonkey.ws, akpm@...ux-foundation.org, mingo@...e.hu
Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/25][V3] irq_flags / halt routines
Jeremy Fitzhardinge escreveu:
> Glauber de Oliveira Costa wrote:
>> Thanks for the explanation, Andi. I understand it much better now, and
>> agree with you.
>>
>> As alternatives what we have now, we can either keep the paravirt_ops
>> as it is now for the native case, just hooking the vsmp functions in
>> place of the normal one, (there are just three ops anyway), refill the
>> paravirt_ops entirely in somewhere like vsmp.c, or similar (or maybe
>> even assigning paravirt_ops.fn = vsmp_fn on the fly, but early enough).
>
> One thing to note is that current code assumes the IF flag is always in
> bit 9, so if you paravirtualize this, you need to either a) make the
> vsmp version copy AC into IF to satisfy the interface, or b) add a new
> op meaning "tell me if this eflags has interrupts enabled or not". I
> went for option a), and it seems to work OK (using bit 9 for "interrupt
> enabled" is pretty arbitrary from a Xen perspective, but not very hard
> to implement, and more localized than making all eflags tests a pvop).
>
> J
It is implemented like a) in the latest patch I send, following chris'
suggestion.
-
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