From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <linux-kernel-owner+w=401wt.eu-S933145AbXCHTme@vger.kernel.org>
Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand
	id S933145AbXCHTme (ORCPT <rfc822;w@1wt.eu>);
	Thu, 8 Mar 2007 14:42:34 -0500
Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S933144AbXCHTme
	(ORCPT <rfc822;linux-kernel-outgoing>);
	Thu, 8 Mar 2007 14:42:34 -0500
Received: from gw.goop.org ([64.81.55.164]:51378 "EHLO mail.goop.org"
	rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP
	id S933115AbXCHTmd (ORCPT <rfc822;linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>);
	Thu, 8 Mar 2007 14:42:33 -0500
Message-ID: <45F06720.8080901@goop.org>
Date: Thu, 08 Mar 2007 11:42:24 -0800
From: Jeremy Fitzhardinge <jeremy@goop.org>
User-Agent: Thunderbird 1.5.0.10 (X11/20070302)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Chris Wright <chrisw@sous-sol.org>
CC: Daniel Arai <arai@vmware.com>,
       Virtualization Mailing List <virtualization@lists.osdl.org>,
       akpm@linux-foundation.org, john stultz <johnstul@us.ibm.com>,
       tglx@linutronix.de, Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>,
       LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: + stupid-hack-to-make-mainline-build.patch added to -mm tree
References: <45EEF966.6060902@goop.org>	<Line.LNX.4.64.0703071304080.1851@d.namei>	<45EF0CF5.5090305@goop.org> <45EF175D.6030609@vmware.com>	<1173302503.24738.795.camel@localhost.localdomain>	<45EF372E.7030600@goop.org>	<1173308717.24738.898.camel@localhost.localdomain>	<45EF49E9.7040509@vmware.com>	<1173313373.24738.937.camel@localhost.localdomain>	<45EF6077.9090302@vmware.com> <20070308182456.GH19575@sequoia.sous-sol.org>
In-Reply-To: <20070308182456.GH19575@sequoia.sous-sol.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org

Chris Wright wrote:
> * Daniel Arai (arai@vmware.com) wrote:
>   
>> There's no good way to override __send_IPI_shortcut.  I suppose we could add 
>> paravirt ops for __send_IPI_shortcut and every other op that touches the APIC. 
>>     
>
> While that's basically what we did in Xen, it would make more sense to
> build it into genapic which would give us one common abstraction to base
> from.  We should avoid adding pv_ops when existing infrastructure exists.
>   

I was looking at cutting in at a much higher level.  The interface in
<linux/smp.h> is a good match for Xen, so I was going to investigate
making pv_ops at that level and see how it falls out.

    J