From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Zachary Amsden Subject: Re: [RFC, PATCH 0/5] Paravirt: fix export of paravirt-ops to binary modules Date: Fri, 20 Apr 2007 16:02:45 -0700 Message-ID: <46294695.4010307@vmware.com> 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> <46294666.90008@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: <46294666.90008@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@lists.linux-foundation.org, Chris Wright , Virtualization Mailing List , Ingo Molnar List-Id: virtualization@lists.linuxfoundation.org Jeremy Fitzhardinge wrote: > 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? > Yes, thanks, I fixed that. The I got lost in info gcc looking for a non-stack memory constraint modifier, but it evaded me. Zach