From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Jeremy Fitzhardinge Subject: Re: [RFC, PATCH 0/5] Paravirt: fix export of paravirt-ops to binary modules Date: Fri, 20 Apr 2007 08:03:38 -0700 Message-ID: <4628D64A.4070900@goop.org> References: <20070420015214.6834BBFC@zach-dev2.vmware.com> <200704201134.42116.ak@suse.de> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-15 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: <200704201134.42116.ak@suse.de> 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: Andi Kleen Cc: Andrew Morton , Petr Vandrovec , Chaz Masden , virtualization@lists.linux-foundation.org, Chris Wright , Virtualization Mailing List , Ingo Molnar List-Id: virtualization@lists.linuxfoundation.org Andi Kleen wrote: > 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. 64-bit args are passed as a pair of 32-bit args, so PAE set_pte_at* functions end up with 5 args. They're used often, so they may be worth patching, but I'm not sure if they're worth exporting. They are implicitly exported in a non-PARAVIRT build by the fact that they're inline functions/macros in a header. I don't know if any modules actually use them. J