From: ebiederm@xmission.com (Eric W. Biederman)
To: Eduardo Habkost <ehabkost@redhat.com>
Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@osdl.org>,
kvm@vger.kernel.org, kexec@lists.infradead.org,
Haren Myneni <hbabu@us.ibm.com>,
Simon Horman <horms@verge.net.au>, Avi Kivity <avi@redhat.com>,
Vivek Goyal <vgoyal@redhat.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/2] kvm: disable virtualization on kdump
Date: Tue, 28 Oct 2008 13:13:03 -0700 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <m18ws84gxc.fsf@frodo.ebiederm.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20081028194530.GK23893@blackpad> (Eduardo Habkost's message of "Tue, 28 Oct 2008 17:45:30 -0200")
Eduardo Habkost <ehabkost@redhat.com> writes:
> I am still wondering if a simple function pointer (instead of a full
> notifier interface) would be good enough. It looks like a reasonable
> tradeoff.
Oh sorry. As long as we do the whole rcu protected thing so it is safe
to call the function without taking locks it should work. I'm not
thrilled about a function pointer but it should work.
> I think I will get flamed if I try to pull to the core a bunch of code
> that always lived in the KVM module. 8)
Why is KVM modular anyway? That seems like some pretty core cpu functionality...
> And even if we pull those functions to the core, we will still have
> a function pointer on the new code anyway, because we would need to
> support vmx and svm.
Depending. It doesn't sound like svm has the problem where init doesn't
work so svm really doesn't need to do this.
Eric
_______________________________________________
kexec mailing list
kexec@lists.infradead.org
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/kexec
WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: ebiederm@xmission.com (Eric W. Biederman)
To: Eduardo Habkost <ehabkost@redhat.com>
Cc: Avi Kivity <avi@redhat.com>, Simon Horman <horms@verge.net.au>,
kexec@lists.infradead.org, kvm@vger.kernel.org,
Andrew Morton <akpm@osdl.org>, Vivek Goyal <vgoyal@redhat.com>,
Haren Myneni <hbabu@us.ibm.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/2] kvm: disable virtualization on kdump
Date: Tue, 28 Oct 2008 13:13:03 -0700 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <m18ws84gxc.fsf@frodo.ebiederm.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20081028194530.GK23893@blackpad> (Eduardo Habkost's message of "Tue, 28 Oct 2008 17:45:30 -0200")
Eduardo Habkost <ehabkost@redhat.com> writes:
> I am still wondering if a simple function pointer (instead of a full
> notifier interface) would be good enough. It looks like a reasonable
> tradeoff.
Oh sorry. As long as we do the whole rcu protected thing so it is safe
to call the function without taking locks it should work. I'm not
thrilled about a function pointer but it should work.
> I think I will get flamed if I try to pull to the core a bunch of code
> that always lived in the KVM module. 8)
Why is KVM modular anyway? That seems like some pretty core cpu functionality...
> And even if we pull those functions to the core, we will still have
> a function pointer on the new code anyway, because we would need to
> support vmx and svm.
Depending. It doesn't sound like svm has the problem where init doesn't
work so svm really doesn't need to do this.
Eric
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2008-10-28 20:14 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 80+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2008-10-20 15:01 [PATCH 0/2] kvm: disable virtualization on kdump Eduardo Habkost
2008-10-20 15:01 ` Eduardo Habkost
2008-10-20 15:01 ` [PATCH 1/2] kdump: crash-time CPU halt notifier interface Eduardo Habkost
2008-10-20 15:01 ` Eduardo Habkost
2008-10-20 15:01 ` [PATCH 2/2] kvm: disable virtualization when halting CPUs on crash Eduardo Habkost
2008-10-20 15:01 ` Eduardo Habkost
2008-10-22 23:28 ` [PATCH 0/2] kvm: disable virtualization on kdump Simon Horman
2008-10-22 23:28 ` Simon Horman
2008-10-23 19:41 ` Eduardo Habkost
2008-10-23 19:41 ` Eduardo Habkost
2008-10-23 22:29 ` Simon Horman
2008-10-23 22:29 ` Simon Horman
2008-10-24 1:00 ` Eric W. Biederman
2008-10-24 1:00 ` Eric W. Biederman
2008-10-26 12:49 ` Avi Kivity
2008-10-26 12:49 ` Avi Kivity
2008-10-26 14:46 ` Eric W. Biederman
2008-10-26 14:46 ` Eric W. Biederman
2008-10-26 15:07 ` Avi Kivity
2008-10-26 15:07 ` Avi Kivity
2008-10-26 21:39 ` Eduardo Habkost
2008-10-26 21:39 ` Eduardo Habkost
2008-10-27 2:08 ` Eric W. Biederman
2008-10-27 2:08 ` Eric W. Biederman
2008-10-27 9:13 ` Avi Kivity
2008-10-27 9:13 ` Avi Kivity
2008-10-27 12:28 ` Eduardo Habkost
2008-10-27 12:28 ` Eduardo Habkost
2008-10-27 14:02 ` Avi Kivity
2008-10-27 14:02 ` Avi Kivity
2008-10-27 17:32 ` Eric W. Biederman
2008-10-27 17:32 ` Eric W. Biederman
2008-10-28 19:45 ` Eduardo Habkost
2008-10-28 19:45 ` Eduardo Habkost
2008-10-28 20:13 ` Eric W. Biederman [this message]
2008-10-28 20:13 ` Eric W. Biederman
2008-10-29 9:41 ` Avi Kivity
2008-10-29 9:41 ` Avi Kivity
2008-10-29 14:54 ` Eric W. Biederman
2008-10-29 14:54 ` Eric W. Biederman
2008-10-29 17:03 ` Avi Kivity
2008-10-29 17:03 ` Avi Kivity
2008-10-30 1:33 ` Eric W. Biederman
2008-10-30 1:33 ` Eric W. Biederman
2008-10-30 7:35 ` Chris Lalancette
2008-10-30 7:35 ` Chris Lalancette
2008-10-30 7:43 ` Avi Kivity
2008-10-30 7:43 ` Avi Kivity
2008-10-30 7:52 ` Avi Kivity
2008-10-30 7:52 ` Avi Kivity
2008-10-29 9:31 ` Avi Kivity
2008-10-29 9:31 ` Avi Kivity
2008-10-27 15:05 ` Eric W. Biederman
2008-10-27 15:05 ` Eric W. Biederman
2008-10-27 15:50 ` Eduardo Habkost
2008-10-27 15:50 ` Eduardo Habkost
2008-10-27 8:54 ` Avi Kivity
2008-10-27 8:54 ` Avi Kivity
2008-10-27 13:09 ` Vivek Goyal
2008-10-27 13:09 ` Vivek Goyal
2008-10-27 14:04 ` Avi Kivity
2008-10-27 14:04 ` Avi Kivity
2008-10-29 20:10 ` Eduardo Habkost
2008-10-29 20:10 ` Eduardo Habkost
2008-10-29 20:29 ` Avi Kivity
2008-10-29 20:29 ` Avi Kivity
2008-10-29 21:05 ` Vivek Goyal
2008-10-29 21:05 ` Vivek Goyal
2008-10-30 0:58 ` Eric W. Biederman
2008-10-30 0:58 ` Eric W. Biederman
2008-10-26 21:47 ` Eric W. Biederman
2008-10-26 21:47 ` Eric W. Biederman
2008-10-27 8:59 ` Avi Kivity
2008-10-27 8:59 ` Avi Kivity
2008-10-27 15:02 ` Eric W. Biederman
2008-10-27 15:02 ` Eric W. Biederman
2008-10-27 15:38 ` Eduardo Habkost
2008-10-27 15:38 ` Eduardo Habkost
2008-10-26 12:46 ` Avi Kivity
2008-10-26 12:46 ` Avi Kivity
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=m18ws84gxc.fsf@frodo.ebiederm.org \
--to=ebiederm@xmission.com \
--cc=akpm@osdl.org \
--cc=avi@redhat.com \
--cc=ehabkost@redhat.com \
--cc=hbabu@us.ibm.com \
--cc=horms@verge.net.au \
--cc=kexec@lists.infradead.org \
--cc=kvm@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=vgoyal@redhat.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.