Messages in this thread | | | Date | Wed, 10 Oct 2007 11:02:50 -0700 | From | Jeremy Fitzhardinge <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH RFC REPOST 1/2] paravirt: refactor struct paravirt_ops into smaller pv_*_ops |
| |
Huh, thought I did a more complete reply to this. Must have farted on it.
Rusty Russell wrote: > Thanks Jeremy, I've actually taken time to finally review this in detail (I'm > assuming you'll refactor as necessary after the x86 arch merger). >
Yep.
>> +struct paravirt_ops paravirt_ops; >> + >> > > Do you actually need to define this? See below... > > >> +DEF_NATIVE(, ud2a, "ud2a"); >> > > Hmm, that's ugly. It was ugly before, but it's uglier now. Maybe just > use "unsigned char ud2a[] = { 0x0f, 0x0b };" in paravirt_patch_default? >
Yeah, its not pretty. I'll have another go.
>> } >> >> struct paravirt_ops paravirt_ops = { >> > ... > >> + .pv_info = { >> + .name = "bare hardware", >> + .paravirt_enabled = 0, >> + .kernel_rpl = 0, >> + .shared_kernel_pmd = 1, /* Only used when CONFIG_X86_PAE is set */ >> + }, >> > > This is the bit I don't get. Why not just declare struct pv_info pvinfo, etc, > and use the declaration of struct paravirt_ops to get your unique > offset-based identifiers for patching? >
Given an op id number in .parainstructions, the patching code needs to be able to index into something to get the corresponding function pointer. If each pv_* structure is its own little unrelated structure, then the id has to be a <structure, id> tuple, which just complicates things. If I pack them all into a single structure then it becomes a simple offset calculation.
That said, there's no need for pv_info to be in that structure, since it contains no function pointers. I'll move it out.
J - 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/
| |