[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <51F91030.9060606@zytor.com>
Date: Wed, 31 Jul 2013 06:25:04 -0700
From: "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>
To: Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk <konrad.wilk@...cle.com>
CC: Mike Rapoport <mike.rapoport@...il.com>,
Rusty Russell <rusty@...tcorp.com.au>,
Ramkumar Ramachandra <artagnon@...il.com>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [QUERY] lguest64
On 07/31/2013 06:17 AM, Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk wrote:
>>
>> The big problem with pvops is that they are a permanent tax on future
>> development -- a classic case of "the hooks problem." As such it is
>> important that there be a real, significant, use case with enough users
>> to make the pain worthwhile. With Xen looking at sunsetting PV support
>> with a long horizon, it might currently be possible to remove pvops some
>
> PV MMU parts specifically.
>
Pretty much stuff that is driverized on plain hardware doesn't matter.
What are you looking at with respect to the basic CPU control state?
-hpa
--
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