From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Arjan van de Ven Subject: Re: [PATCH] paravirt.h Date: Wed, 23 Aug 2006 10:56:34 +0200 Message-ID: <1156323394.2829.24.camel@laptopd505.fenrus.org> References: <1155202505.18420.5.camel@localhost.localdomain> <44DB7596.6010503@goop.org> <1156254965.27114.17.camel@localhost.localdomain> <200608221544.26989.ak@muc.de> <44EB3BF0.3040805@vmware.com> <1156271386.2976.102.camel@laptopd505.fenrus.org> <1156275004.27114.34.camel@localhost.localdomain> <44EB584A.5070505@vmware.com> <44EB5A76.9060402@vmware.com> <44EB7F0C.60402@vmware.com> <1156319788.2829.12.camel@laptopd505.fenrus.org> <44EC1563.90206@vmware.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: <44EC1563.90206@vmware.com> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org To: Zachary Amsden Cc: Andi Kleen , virtualization@lists.osdl.org, Jeremy Fitzhardinge , Andrew Morton , Chris Wright , Linux Kernel Mailing List List-Id: virtualization@lists.linuxfoundation.org On Wed, 2006-08-23 at 01:44 -0700, Zachary Amsden wrote: > Arjan van de Ven wrote: > >> Since this code is so rather, um, custom, I was going to reimplement > >> stop_machine in the module. > >> > > > > that sounds like a big mistake. I assume you want your VMI module to be > > part of mainline for one. > > > > And this is the sort of thing that if we want to support it, we better > > support it inside the main kernel, eg provide an api to modules to use > > it, rather than having each module hack their own.... > > > > Yes, after discussion with Rusty, it appears that beefing up > stop_machine_run is the right way to go. And it has benefits for > non-paravirt code as well, such as allowing plug-in kprobes or oprofile > extension modules to be loaded without having to deal with a debug > exception or NMI during module load/unload. it's more than stop_machine; If we do allow this I think this has to be a register_virtualization() function that does the lot. In common code.