[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20201209120307.GB18203@zn.tnic>
Date: Wed, 9 Dec 2020 13:03:07 +0100
From: Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>
To: Jürgen Groß <jgross@...e.com>
Cc: xen-devel@...ts.xenproject.org, x86@...nel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, peterz@...radead.org,
luto@...nel.org, Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 07/12] x86: add new features for paravirt patching
On Wed, Dec 09, 2020 at 08:30:53AM +0100, Jürgen Groß wrote:
> Hey, I already suggested to use ~FEATURE for that purpose (see
> https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/f105a63d-6b51-3afb-83e0-e899ea40813e@suse.com/
Great minds think alike!
:-P
> I'd rather make the syntax:
>
> ALTERNATIVE_TERNARY <initial-code> <feature> <code-for-feature-set>
> <code-for-feature-unset>
>
> as this ...
Sure, that is ok too.
> ... would match perfectly to this interpretation.
Yap.
> Hmm, using flags is an alternative (pun intended :-) ).
LOL!
Btw, pls do check how much the vmlinux size of an allyesconfig grows
with this as we will be adding a byte per patch site. Not that it would
matter too much - the flags are a long way a comin'. :-)
> No, this is needed for non-Xen cases, too (especially pv spinlocks).
I see.
> > Can you give an example here pls why the paravirt patching needs to run
> > first?
>
> Okay.
I meant an example for me to have a look at. :)
If possible pls.
Thx.
--
Regards/Gruss,
Boris.
https://people.kernel.org/tglx/notes-about-netiquette
Powered by blists - more mailing lists