From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: ebiederm@xmission.com (Eric W. Biederman) Subject: Re: [PATCH 08/16] x86: Emergency virtualization disable function Date: Wed, 05 Nov 2008 09:33:06 -0800 Message-ID: References: <1225810364-8990-1-git-send-email-ehabkost@redhat.com> <1225810364-8990-9-git-send-email-ehabkost@redhat.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Cc: Avi Kivity , Ingo Molnar , Simon Horman , Andrew Morton , Vivek Goyal , Haren Myneni , Andrey Borzenkov , mingo@redhat.com, "Rafael J. Wysocki" , kexec@lists.infradead.org, kvm@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org To: Eduardo Habkost Return-path: Received: from out02.mta.xmission.com ([166.70.13.232]:57770 "EHLO out02.mta.xmission.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753061AbYKERfL (ORCPT ); Wed, 5 Nov 2008 12:35:11 -0500 In-Reply-To: <1225810364-8990-9-git-send-email-ehabkost@redhat.com> (Eduardo Habkost's message of "Tue, 4 Nov 2008 12:52:36 -0200") Sender: kvm-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: Eduardo Habkost writes: > +int set_virt_disable_func(void (*fn)(void)) > +{ > + int r = 0; > + > + spin_lock(&virt_disable_lock); > + if (!virt_disable_fn) > + rcu_assign_pointer(virt_disable_fn, fn); > + else > + r = -EEXIST; > + spin_unlock(&virt_disable_lock); > + > + return r; > +} > +EXPORT_SYMBOL(set_virt_disable_func); EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL? > +EXPORT_SYMBOL(clear_virt_disable_func); EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL? We are talking a core internal api that should not even be exported if KVM is compiled into the kernel. I have had to tell people NO too many times by that wanted to shove code on the kexec on panic path that had no business there. I do not want to give the least little impression that this is an ok hook for the to use. The very specific name helps in that regard thank you for that. Having the symbol exported GPL would help even more. Overall I think the code is just barely ok. I don't like the fact that to run 2-3 instructions per cpu we are two function pointers deep. It feels like we have an excess of abstraction here on the kvm side. Is it possible to have the individual kvm modules call set_virt_disable_func and clear_virt_disable_func? Instead of going through the x86_kvm_ops? It really feels like we have an excess of abstraction here. Eric