Messages in this thread | | | Subject | Re: [PATCH 3/4] x86 paravirt_ops: implementation of paravirt_ops | From | Rusty Russell <> | Date | Mon, 07 Aug 2006 16:13:41 +1000 |
| |
On Mon, 2006-08-07 at 07:39 +0200, Andi Kleen wrote: > On Monday 07 August 2006 06:47, Rusty Russell wrote: > > This patch does the dumbest possible replacement of paravirtualized > > instructions: calls through a "paravirt_ops" structure. Currently > > these are function implementations of native hardware: hypervisors > > will override the ops structure with their own variants. > > You should call it HAL - that would make it clearer what it is.
People get visions of grandeur when HAL is mentioned: they think it'll abstract everything. I really only want to do the minimum needed for the hypervisors we have on the table today.
Maybe one day it will abstract everything, then we can call it a HAL. But I won't be doing that work 8)
> I think I would prefer to patch always. Is there a particular > reason you can't do that?
We could patch all the indirect calls into direct calls, but I don't think it's worth bothering: most simply don't matter.
The implementation ensures that someone can get boot on a new hypervisor by populating the ops struct. Later they can go back and implement the patching stuff.
> It would be better to merge this with the existing LOCK prefix patching > or perhaps the normal alternative() patcher (is there any particular > reason you can't use it?) > > Three alternative patching mechanisms just seems to be too many
Each backend wants a different patch, so alternative() doesn't cut it. We could look at generalizing alternative() I guess, but it works fine so I didn't want to touch it.
Rusty. -- Help! Save Australia from the worst of the DMCA: http://linux.org.au/law
- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
| |