From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: ebiederm@xmission.com (Eric W. Biederman) Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/2] kvm: disable virtualization on kdump Date: Tue, 28 Oct 2008 13:13:03 -0700 Message-ID: References: <4904676F.3020706@redhat.com> <490487C1.1010707@redhat.com> <20081026213927.GF23893@blackpad> <49058645.9010005@redhat.com> <20081027122808.GH23893@blackpad> <4905C9ED.807@redhat.com> <20081028194530.GK23893@blackpad> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Cc: Avi Kivity , Simon Horman , kexec@lists.infradead.org, kvm@vger.kernel.org, Andrew Morton , Vivek Goyal , Haren Myneni To: Eduardo Habkost Return-path: Received: from out02.mta.xmission.com ([166.70.13.232]:53458 "EHLO out02.mta.xmission.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752448AbYJ1UOu (ORCPT ); Tue, 28 Oct 2008 16:14:50 -0400 In-Reply-To: <20081028194530.GK23893@blackpad> (Eduardo Habkost's message of "Tue, 28 Oct 2008 17:45:30 -0200") Sender: kvm-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: Eduardo Habkost 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