From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Andi Kleen Subject: Re: [RFC, PATCH 0/5] Paravirt: fix export of paravirt-ops to binary modules Date: Fri, 20 Apr 2007 11:34:41 +0200 Message-ID: <200704201134.42116.ak@suse.de> References: <20070420015214.6834BBFC@zach-dev2.vmware.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-15" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: <20070420015214.6834BBFC@zach-dev2.vmware.com> Content-Disposition: inline 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: virtualization@lists.linux-foundation.org Cc: Andrew Morton , Petr Vandrovec , Chaz Masden , Chris Wright , Virtualization Mailing List , Ingo Molnar List-Id: virtualization@lists.linuxfoundation.org On Friday 20 April 2007 03:52:14 Zachary Amsden wrote: > A clever set of manipulations allows us to fix binary modules with paravirt-ops > by just not exporting paravirt_ops at all and using the new patching code. > > What do you think? Experimental patches here... only partially tested, but > booting and appear to be a working prototype. Basic idea looks good. But is the 5 argument support really needed? I don't see any paravirt ops functions that needs it and even if there was one it still wouldn't be clear if it made sense to export it. -Andi