From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Andi Kleen Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/4] x86 paravirt_ops: implementation of paravirt_ops Date: Mon, 7 Aug 2006 08:20:09 +0200 Message-ID: <200608070820.09059.ak@muc.de> References: <1154925835.21647.29.camel@localhost.localdomain> <200608070739.33428.ak@muc.de> <1154931222.7642.21.camel@localhost.localdomain> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Return-path: In-Reply-To: <1154931222.7642.21.camel@localhost.localdomain> Content-Disposition: inline List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: virtualization-bounces@lists.osdl.org Errors-To: virtualization-bounces@lists.osdl.org To: virtualization@lists.osdl.org Cc: Andrew Morton , Chris Wright , Linux Kernel Mailing List List-Id: virtualization@lists.linuxfoundation.org > > 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. I still think it would be better to patch always. > 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. You could at least use a common function (with the replacement passed in as argument) for lock prefixes and your stuff -Andi From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1751098AbWHGGUU (ORCPT ); Mon, 7 Aug 2006 02:20:20 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1751110AbWHGGUU (ORCPT ); Mon, 7 Aug 2006 02:20:20 -0400 Received: from mx1.suse.de ([195.135.220.2]:32174 "EHLO mx1.suse.de") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751098AbWHGGUS (ORCPT ); Mon, 7 Aug 2006 02:20:18 -0400 From: Andi Kleen To: virtualization@lists.osdl.org Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/4] x86 paravirt_ops: implementation of paravirt_ops Date: Mon, 7 Aug 2006 08:20:09 +0200 User-Agent: KMail/1.9.3 Cc: Rusty Russell , Andrew Morton , Linux Kernel Mailing List , Chris Wright References: <1154925835.21647.29.camel@localhost.localdomain> <200608070739.33428.ak@muc.de> <1154931222.7642.21.camel@localhost.localdomain> In-Reply-To: <1154931222.7642.21.camel@localhost.localdomain> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline Message-Id: <200608070820.09059.ak@muc.de> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org > > 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. I still think it would be better to patch always. > 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. You could at least use a common function (with the replacement passed in as argument) for lock prefixes and your stuff -Andi