From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Andi Kleen Subject: Re: The virtuailization patches break Voyager. Date: Sat, 28 Apr 2007 19:23:47 +0200 Message-ID: <20070428172347.GD29316@bingen.suse.de> References: <1177775271.3688.30.camel@mulgrave.il.steeleye.com> <1177777210.3688.50.camel@mulgrave.il.steeleye.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Return-path: Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <1177777210.3688.50.camel@mulgrave.il.steeleye.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: James Bottomley Cc: virtualization@lists.osdl.org, Andrew Morton , "Eric W. Biederman" List-Id: virtualization@lists.linuxfoundation.org On Sat, Apr 28, 2007 at 11:20:10AM -0500, James Bottomley wrote: > On Sat, 2007-04-28 at 10:02 -0600, Eric W. Biederman wrote: > > Reasonable. I think we would have fewer people to yell at if we > > restructured things a bit. > > Sure ... propose a restructure and I'll see if I can fit into it. All > voyager really needs is to subvert the entirey of the SMP layer (not > being APIC based it needs a complete rewrite of most smp_ function) It Xen needs essentially the same and J. did smp_ops for this so in theory it should work for you. -Andi