From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Muli Ben-Yehuda Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/4] x86 paravirt_ops: create no_paravirt.h for native ops Date: Mon, 7 Aug 2006 11:40:00 +0300 Message-ID: <20060807084000.GA3802@rhun.haifa.ibm.com> References: <1154925835.21647.29.camel@localhost.localdomain> <200608070730.17813.ak@muc.de> <1154930669.7642.12.camel@localhost.localdomain> <200608070817.42074.ak@muc.de> <20060807062705.GB4979@rhun.haifa.ibm.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Return-path: Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: virtualization-bounces@lists.osdl.org Errors-To: virtualization-bounces@lists.osdl.org To: Jan Engelhardt Cc: Andrew Morton , Andi Kleen , Chris Wright , virtualization@lists.osdl.org, Linux Kernel Mailing List List-Id: virtualization@lists.linuxfoundation.org On Mon, Aug 07, 2006 at 09:34:43AM +0200, Jan Engelhardt wrote: > = > >baremetal.h seems appropriate. > = > , in hommage to "vanilla kernel". I think most people use 'vanilla' to mean 'mainline', as in Linus's kernel, so I find 'baremetal' (as opposed to 'virtualized') more appropriate but... since this thread has all of the characteristics of your favorite bike-shed, I'll bow out of it now :-) Cheers, Muli