From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1751038AbXCaIUZ (ORCPT ); Sat, 31 Mar 2007 04:20:25 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1751549AbXCaIUZ (ORCPT ); Sat, 31 Mar 2007 04:20:25 -0400 Received: from smtp-outbound-1.vmware.com ([65.113.40.141]:34173 "EHLO smtp-outbound-1.vmware.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751038AbXCaIUX (ORCPT ); Sat, 31 Mar 2007 04:20:23 -0400 Message-ID: <460E27A4.1040606@vmware.com> Date: Sat, 31 Mar 2007 01:19:32 -0800 From: Zachary Amsden User-Agent: Thunderbird 1.5.0.10 (X11/20070221) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Jeremy Fitzhardinge CC: Andrew Morton , Andi Kleen , Linus Torvalds , Linux Kernel Mailing List Subject: Re: [PATCH] VMI paravirt-ops bugfix for 2.6.21 References: <460E1FC7.5030107@vmware.com> <460E1796.2070607@goop.org> In-Reply-To: <460E1796.2070607@goop.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Jeremy Fitzhardinge wrote: > > The comment only talks about disabling interrupts for lazy_mmu, but this > seems to do it for lazy_cpu as well. Is that OK? What happens if > someone wants to change interrupt states under lazy_cpu; I can't think > of an inherent reason why that wouldn't be allowed (though I don't think > it happens now). > Well, lazy cpu is used only for context switch. Changing interrupt states won't happen there. > This kind of logic is a bit clunky anyway; would it be better to simply > have separate enable/disable functions? Or at least separate functions > per mode? > I want to do a cleaner fix for 2.6.22; this is pretty clunky, agree. But it is still better to have fewer paravirt-ops. Perhaps lazy_enter / flush would be more semantically useful. Zach