[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <4925BC9E.9010006@goop.org>
Date: Thu, 20 Nov 2008 11:38:06 -0800
From: Jeremy Fitzhardinge <jeremy@...p.org>
To: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
CC: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Xen-devel <xen-devel@...ts.xensource.com>,
the arch/x86 maintainers <x86@...nel.org>,
Ian Campbell <ian.campbell@...rix.com>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>, Yinghai Lu <yinghai@...nel.org>,
"Eric W. Biederman" <ebiederm@...ssion.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 30 of 38] xen: implement io_apic_ops
Ingo Molnar wrote:
> it certainly looks thin enough to me although i'm really not sure we
> want to virtualize at the IO-APIC level. Peter, what's your
> opinion/preference?
>
Given that Xen's requirements here are pretty Xen-specific (I don't
imagine that any other virtualization system would work in the same
way), I didn't bother trying to come up with a general "virtualization"
layer at this level - that's why I was pretty blunt about putting xen_*
calls in without any indirection. But the code could certainly be
restructured in a way which would make it simpler to hook Xen as a
side-effect, so long as it was achieving some other goal as well
(general cleanup, big iron architecture support, better msi handling,
whatever...).
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