From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Jeremy Fitzhardinge Subject: Re: + stupid-hack-to-make-mainline-build.patch added to -mm tree Date: Thu, 08 Mar 2007 11:42:24 -0800 Message-ID: <45F06720.8080901@goop.org> References: <45EEF966.6060902@goop.org> <45EF0CF5.5090305@goop.org> <45EF175D.6030609@vmware.com> <1173302503.24738.795.camel@localhost.localdomain> <45EF372E.7030600@goop.org> <1173308717.24738.898.camel@localhost.localdomain> <45EF49E9.7040509@vmware.com> <1173313373.24738.937.camel@localhost.localdomain> <45EF6077.9090302@vmware.com> <20070308182456.GH19575@sequoia.sous-sol.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: <20070308182456.GH19575@sequoia.sous-sol.org> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org To: Chris Wright Cc: Daniel Arai , Virtualization Mailing List , akpm@linux-foundation.org, john stultz , tglx@linutronix.de, Ingo Molnar , LKML List-Id: virtualization@lists.linuxfoundation.org Chris Wright wrote: > * Daniel Arai (arai@vmware.com) wrote: > >> There's no good way to override __send_IPI_shortcut. I suppose we could add >> paravirt ops for __send_IPI_shortcut and every other op that touches the APIC. >> > > While that's basically what we did in Xen, it would make more sense to > build it into genapic which would give us one common abstraction to base > from. We should avoid adding pv_ops when existing infrastructure exists. > I was looking at cutting in at a much higher level. The interface in is a good match for Xen, so I was going to investigate making pv_ops at that level and see how it falls out. J