Re: [PATCH 0/2] kvm: disable virtualization on kdump

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