From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Zachary Amsden Subject: Re: [RFC, PATCH 4/5] Paravirt_ops drop internal patches.patch Date: Thu, 19 Apr 2007 22:13:29 -0700 Message-ID: <46284BF9.8070103@vmware.com> References: <20070420015254.6C451BFC@zach-dev2.vmware.com> <46284B49.9080804@goop.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-15; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: <46284B49.9080804@goop.org> 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: Jeremy Fitzhardinge Cc: Andrew Morton , Petr Vandrovec , Chaz Masden , Virtualization Mailing List , Chris Wright , Andi Kleen , Ingo Molnar List-Id: virtualization@lists.linuxfoundation.org Jeremy Fitzhardinge wrote: > Zachary Amsden wrote: > >> Some of these boot hooks do not need to be patched, in fact, it is better not >> to patch them at all and thus keep them totally private. >> >> > > I think I generally backed off on patching init functions and the like. > Are these really the only ones which need adjustment? I bet things like > the descriptor functions could be indirect/private with very little impact. > Perhaps, but I'd rather not split hairs on it just yet - I actually have no idea exactly which paravirt-ops will be needed, and so far, my conclusions have led me to believe that a fare bit more than the obvious paravirt-ops need to be available to modules. So I would rather just split off pure init functions, which really have no business being exported to modules. Zach