[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <470FC7F4.1030300@goop.org>
Date: Fri, 12 Oct 2007 12:16:04 -0700
From: Jeremy Fitzhardinge <jeremy@...p.org>
To: Rusty Russell <rusty@...tcorp.com.au>
CC: Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Andi Kleen <ak@...e.de>, Zachary Amsden <zach@...are.com>,
Anthony Liguori <anthony@...emonkey.ws>,
Avi Kivity <avi@...ranet.com>,
Glauber de Oliveira Costa <glommer@...il.com>,
"Nakajima, Jun" <jun.nakajima@...el.com>,
Virtualization Mailing List <virtualization@...ts.osdl.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC REPOST 1/2] paravirt: refactor struct paravirt_ops
into smaller pv_*_ops
Rusty Russell wrote:
> Sure, but this can actually be a temporary thing inside the patch code (or at
> least static to that file if it's too big for the stack).
>
> struct paravirt_ops patch_template = { .pv_info = pv_info, .pv_cpu_ops =
> pv_cpu_ops, ... };
>
> Then you can even rename struct paravirt_ops to "struct patch_template" and
> we're well on the way to making this a generic function-call patching
> mechanism, rather than something paravirt-specific.
>
Hm, I see. I'm not quite sure that's the best way to achieve a generic
result, but I see your point.
> Hope that clarifies my thinking...
Well, I'd agree with making the code more generic if another user
appears, but I'd rather not do it prematurely.
Sorry, I forgot to update lguest. I'll do that and repost (but I won't
have had a chance to test it).
Are you otherwise happy with the patch in its current form? And are you
happy with the lazymode changes?
J
-
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