[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20230312204738.GCZA46aqNzDRjqVF/u@fat_crate.local>
Date: Sun, 12 Mar 2023 21:47:38 +0100
From: Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>
To: Juergen Gross <jgross@...e.com>
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, x86@...nel.org,
virtualization@...ts.linux-foundation.org,
"Srivatsa S. Bhat (VMware)" <srivatsa@...il.mit.edu>,
Alexey Makhalov <amakhalov@...are.com>,
VMware PV-Drivers Reviewers <pv-drivers@...are.com>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com>,
"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] x86/paravirt: convert simple paravirt functions to asm
On Fri, Mar 10, 2023 at 07:24:17AM +0100, Juergen Gross wrote:
> The "normal" cases not using alternatives should rather be switched to
> static calls.
Or that.
> Whether it is possible to mix a static call with alternatives needs to
> be evaluated.
I'd prefer not to mix them. Either should be fine and if neither have
the required functionality, then it should be added depending on which
- static calls or alternatives - would make things simpler.
I'd love to get rid of the whole paravirt glue and use the facilities we
have in the tree instead.
But no hurry - it should be nice and clean work. :-)
--
Regards/Gruss,
Boris.
https://people.kernel.org/tglx/notes-about-netiquette
Powered by blists - more mailing lists