From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 5/5 V2] kvm tools: Initialize and use VESA and VNC
Date: Wed, 25 May 2011 10:38:25 +0200
Message-ID: <20110525083825.GG21552@elte.hu>
References: <1306149553-26793-1-git-send-email-levinsasha928@gmail.com>
 <1306149553-26793-5-git-send-email-levinsasha928@gmail.com>
 <20110523113824.GE4042@elte.hu>
 <4DDB6E55.8080408@redhat.com>
 <20110524085024.GA31453@elte.hu>
 <4DDB77E5.4080306@redhat.com>
 <20110524194019.GA27634@elte.hu>
 <4DDCBC08.3030507@redhat.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Cc: Sasha Levin <levinsasha928@gmail.com>, penberg@kernel.org,
	john@jfloren.net, kvm@vger.kernel.org, asias.hejun@gmail.com,
	gorcunov@gmail.com, prasadjoshi124@gmail.com
To: Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@redhat.com>
Return-path: <kvm-owner@vger.kernel.org>
Received: from mx2.mail.elte.hu ([157.181.151.9]:34360 "EHLO mx2.mail.elte.hu"
	rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP
	id S932782Ab1EYIig (ORCPT <rfc822;kvm@vger.kernel.org>);
	Wed, 25 May 2011 04:38:36 -0400
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <4DDCBC08.3030507@redhat.com>
Sender: kvm-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-ID: <kvm.vger.kernel.org>


* Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@redhat.com> wrote:

> > ((constructor)) has showstopper properties:
> >
> > - We don't have access to the program arguments
> >
> > - stdio is probably not set up yet (this is undefined AFAICS)
> 
> As I said, you can do this even better by doing only minimal work in
> the constructor. [...]

The costs of doing that:

  - extra per init entry data structures

  - extra code being run during the constructor phase

  - the risk of not getting the ((constructor)) init run at all,
    such as on static libraries

The only benefit is:

  - ((constructor)) is a non-portable GCC extension so the only portability
    win is to possibly support non-ELF targets. Which ones do we care about?

At this point it is a rather legitimate technical decision for us to say that 
we do not want to bear those cost for that limited benefit, wouldn't you agree?

If someone adds non-ELF support then it can all be switched over to the bit 
more bloated ((constructor)) approach rather easily - so this all is a 
non-issue really.

Thanks,

	Ingo