[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <1298492367.18387.59.camel@x201>
Date: Wed, 23 Feb 2011 13:19:27 -0700
From: Alex Williamson <alex.williamson@...hat.com>
To: Avi Kivity <avi@...hat.com>
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, kvm@...r.kernel.org,
mtosatti@...hat.com, xiaoguangrong@...fujitsu.com,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 1/3] Weight-balanced tree
On Wed, 2011-02-23 at 19:08 +0200, Avi Kivity wrote:
> On 02/23/2011 07:02 PM, Alex Williamson wrote:
> > >
> > > obj-$(CONFIG_WEIGHT_BALANCED_TREE) += wbtree.o
> > >
> > > then kvm can select it, and the impact on non-kvm kernels is removed.
> >
> > Then we'd have issues trying to build an external kvm module for a
> > pre-existing non-kvm kernel. Do we care?
>
> Officially, no.
>
> What we typically do in these cases is copy the code into the kvm-kmod
> compatibility layer and compile it if the kernel doesn't supply it (like
> all older kernels regardless of config).
>
> > If we were to take such a
> > path, I think the default should be on, kvm would depend on it, but we
> > could add an option to disable it for EMBEDDED/EXPERT. Thanks,
>
> That would work as well.
In retrospect, I suppose it doesn't really make sense to have it
compiled in "just in case". I'll follow your first suggestion. Thanks,
Alex
--
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