[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <4C5686EC.4060703@redhat.com>
Date: Mon, 02 Aug 2010 11:50:52 +0300
From: Avi Kivity <avi@...hat.com>
To: vatsa@...ux.vnet.ibm.com
CC: Marcelo Tosatti <mtosatti@...hat.com>,
Gleb Natapov <gleb@...hat.com>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
npiggin@...e.de, Jeremy Fitzhardinge <jeremy@...p.org>,
kvm@...r.kernel.org, bharata@...ibm.com,
Balbir Singh <balbir@...ibm.com>,
Jan Beulich <JBeulich@...ell.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC 0/4] Paravirt-spinlock implementation for KVM guests
(Version 0)
On 07/26/2010 09:11 AM, Srivatsa Vaddagiri wrote:
> This patch-series implements paravirt-spinlock implementation for KVM guests,
> based heavily on Xen's implementation. I tried to refactor Xen's spinlock
> implementation to make it common for both Xen and KVM - but found that
> few differences between Xen and KVM (Xen has the ability to block on a
> particular event/irq for example) _and_ the fact that the guest kernel
> can be compiled to support both Xen and KVM hypervisors (CONFIG_XEN and
> CONFIG_KVM_GUEST can both be turned on) makes the "common" code a eye-sore.
> There will have to be:
>
> if (xen) {
> ...
> } else if (kvm) {
> ..
> }
>
> or possibly:
>
> alternative(NOP, some_xen_specific_call, ....)
>
> type of code in the common implementation.
I do think things are pretty common. If that is the only issue, you can
use a plain function vector, no?
--
error compiling committee.c: too many arguments to function
--
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