lists.openwall.net | lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening PHC | |
Open Source and information security mailing list archives
| ||
|
Date: Sun, 19 Feb 2012 13:23:39 -0500 From: Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk <konrad.wilk@...cle.com> To: "Liu, Jinsong" <jinsong.liu@...el.com> Cc: "xen-devel@...ts.xensource.com" <xen-devel@...ts.xensource.com>, Kernel development list <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, "linux-acpi@...r.kernel.org" <linux-acpi@...r.kernel.org>, "keir.xen@...il.com" <keir.xen@...il.com>, Jan Beulich <JBeulich@...e.com>, "Li, Shaohua" <shaohua.li@...el.com>, "lenb@...nel.org" <lenb@...nel.org> Subject: Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH 1/3] PAD helper for native and paravirt platform > >>> +struct pv_pad_ops { > >>> + int (*acpi_pad_init)(void); > >>> + void (*acpi_pad_exit)(void); > >>> +}; > >>> + > > > > Looking at this a bit closer I am not sure why you choose the paravirt > > interface for this? There is another one - the x86 that could have > > been > > choosen. Or introduce a new one that is specific to ACPI. > > > > I am curious - what was the reason for using the paravirt interface? > > I understand it does get the job done, but it seems a bit overkill > > when something simple could have been used? > > > > It uses paravirt interface to avoid some code like 'xen_...' in native code path (acpi_pad.c). > I'm not quite sure what does 'x86' here mean? Adding 2 fields (acpi_pad_init/exit) in arch/x86/xen/enlighten.c --> xen_cpu_ops? seems it's much simpler. arch/x86/include/asm/x86_init.h But before you go that way let me ask you another question - can ACPI PAD be used on ARM or IA64? If so, wouldn't this fail compilation as this pvops structure is not defined on IA64? The other thing I am not comfortable about is that the pvops structure are used for low-level code. Not for higher up, like ACPI. For that another structure seems more prudent. Perhaps something like the x86 one, but specific to ACPI? -- 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