Re: [Patch] [0/3] Patches to support new architectures.

[Avi Kivity <avi-atKUWr5tajBWk0Htik3J/w@public.gmane.org>]

Zhang, Xiantao wrote:
>>
>> x86 will continue to use kvm_x86_ops for that purposes.  But other
>> archs should not.
>>
>> x86 will use both mechanisms: first, linkage will select the x86
>> function, and then kvm_x86_ops will be used to select the
>> implementation dependent code.  The two levels are very different as
>> kvm_x86_ops is very low level and x86 specific.
>>     
> Hi Avi,
>      Maybe linkage is a better choice. But if we need to maintain two
> different implmentation for different archs, it may introduce
> unnecessary effort.
> In addition, I can't figure out any disadvantages with function
> pointers, moreover, it makes source uniform for all architectures,
> though it is not very necessary. 
>   

Linkage is more efficient (though I don't think we'll be able to measure
the difference) and is also the traditional way of doing things in Linux.

I don't see why it causes extra effort.  Can you explain?

-- 
Do not meddle in the internals of kernels, for they are subtle and quick to panic.


-------------------------------------------------------------------------
This SF.net email is sponsored by: Splunk Inc.
Still grepping through log files to find problems?  Stop.
Now Search log events and configuration files using AJAX and a browser.
Download your FREE copy of Splunk now >> http://get.splunk.com/