From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Jeremy Fitzhardinge Subject: Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH][pvops_dom0][2/4] Introduce the external control operation interface for domain0 ACPI parser Date: Wed, 29 Jul 2009 09:43:50 -0700 Message-ID: <4A707C46.2060405@goop.org> References: <4D05DB80B95B23498C72C700BD6C2E0B315D64CC@pdsmsx502.ccr.corp.intel.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: Received: from claw.goop.org ([74.207.240.146]:35585 "EHLO claw.goop.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1755663AbZG2Qnv (ORCPT ); Wed, 29 Jul 2009 12:43:51 -0400 In-Reply-To: Sender: linux-acpi-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-acpi@vger.kernel.org To: "Brown, Len" Cc: "Yu, Ke" , "linux-acpi@vger.kernel.org" , "Tian, Kevin" On 07/28/09 21:14, Brown, Len wrote: > Does somebody expect all this dom0 stuff to really live > in the upstream linux kernel source tree? > The control domain (dom0) patches are held up by a very specific set of concerns that I'm working on now. I don't think there's any fundamental reason it won't make it in at some point, and there's no reason not to lay the groundwork in the meantime. These acpi patches are very useful, but not essential functionality. I'd like to see them evolve along lines that are acceptable to everyone before making a serious push upstream. > s/extcntl/xen/ to make it clear why this code exists -- > or is there an expected "external control" other than Xen? > I dislike making Xen-specific changes. Ideally we can find a way to fit these changes into some other abstraction which already exists, or if added would be useful to more than one user. J