From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Jeremy Fitzhardinge Subject: Re: [patch 13/26] Xen-paravirt_ops: Consistently wrap paravirt ops callsites to make them patchable Date: Sun, 18 Mar 2007 00:59:03 -0700 Message-ID: <45FCF147.30409@goop.org> References: <20070316.023331.59468179.davem@davemloft.net> <45FB005D.9060809@goop.org> <1174127638.8897.75.camel@localhost.localdomain> <20070318.003309.71088169.davem@davemloft.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: zach@vmware.com, xen-devel@lists.xensource.com, ak@muc.de, netdev@vger.kernel.org, rusty@rustcorp.com.au, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, chrisw@sous-sol.org, virtualization@lists.osdl.org, anthony@codemonkey.ws, mingo@elte.hu, torvalds@linux-foundation.org, akpm@linux-foundation.org To: David Miller Return-path: In-Reply-To: <20070318.003309.71088169.davem@davemloft.net> List-Unsubscribe: , List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: xen-devel-bounces@lists.xensource.com Errors-To: xen-devel-bounces@lists.xensource.com List-Id: netdev.vger.kernel.org David Miller wrote: > The idea is _NOT_ that you go look for references to the paravirt_ops > members structure, that would be stupid and you wouldn't be able to > use the most efficient addressing mode on a given cpu, you'd be > patching up indirect calls and crap like that. Just say no... > > Instead you get rid of paravirt ops completely, and you call functions > whose symbol name will not resolve in the initial kernel link. > Yeah, I came to that conclusion after thinking about it for a while. Thanks for the pointer to the sparc stuff; it looks very interesting. J