From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Rusty Russell Subject: Re: [RFC, PATCH 0/5] Paravirt: fix export of paravirt-ops to binary modules Date: Mon, 23 Apr 2007 09:37:07 +1000 Message-ID: <1177285027.17026.0.camel@localhost.localdomain> References: <20070420015214.6834BBFC@zach-dev2.vmware.com> <200704201134.42116.ak@suse.de> <4628D64A.4070900@goop.org> <46292FB2.5030404@vmware.com> <462931A2.2060104@goop.org> <46293266.9020306@vmware.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: <46293266.9020306@vmware.com> List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: virtualization-bounces@lists.linux-foundation.org Errors-To: virtualization-bounces@lists.linux-foundation.org To: Zachary Amsden Cc: Andrew Morton , Chaz Masden , Petr Vandrovec , virtualization@lists.linux-foundation.org, Chris Wright , Virtualization Mailing List , Ingo Molnar List-Id: virtualization@lists.linuxfoundation.org On Fri, 2007-04-20 at 14:36 -0700, Zachary Amsden wrote: > Jeremy Fitzhardinge wrote: > > Zachary Amsden wrote: > > > >> Yes, I don't know either - but we should be consistent about their > >> export regardless of whether PAE is selected or not. So we should > >> either have 5 arg macros or not export set_pte_at* at all, even in 4 > >> arg version. > >> > > > > So can you separately control exportability independently from patchability? > > > > Nope. But I think we should maintain parity between PAE and non-PAE - > and probably also maintain parity between non-paravirt-ops and > paravirt-ops, which means the 5 arg macros are a good idea. It's not > like they are very hard to create or maintain. Less exports good. Consistency with all config options isn't a hard requirement: I'd be tempted not to export the pte functions. Rusty.