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 16:01:58 -0700 Message-ID: <46294666.90008@goop.org> References: <20070420015214.6834BBFC@zach-dev2.vmware.com> <200704201134.42116.ak@suse.de> <4628D64A.4070900@goop.org> <46292FB2.5030404@vmware.com> <462931A2.2060104@goop.org> <46293266.9020306@vmware.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-15 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: <46293266.9020306@vmware.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: Zachary Amsden 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 Zachary Amsden wrote: > Nope. But I think we should maintain parity between PAE and non-PAE - > and probably also maintain parity between non-paravirt-ops and > paravirt-ops, which means the 5 arg macros are a good idea. It's not > like they are very hard to create or maintain. Yep. Did you see the comment about not being able to use "rm" for arg4? J