From: Zachary Amsden <zach@vmware.com>
To: Jeremy Fitzhardinge <jeremy@goop.org>
Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@osdl.org>, Zachary Amsden <zamsden@gmail.com>,
Andi Kleen <ak@muc.de>, Petr Vandrovec <petr@vmware.com>,
Chris Wright <chrisw@sous-sol.org>,
Virtualization Mailing List <virtualization@lists.osdl.org>,
"Eric W. Biederman" <ebiederm@xmission.com>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>
Subject: Re: [RFC, PATCH 5/5] Paravirt_ops export.patch
Date: Mon, 23 Apr 2007 15:24:25 -0700 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <462D3219.9080301@vmware.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <462D300C.8000700@goop.org>
Jeremy Fitzhardinge wrote:
> I'm not keen on *requiring* patching to occur, in general. The
> performance without patching is only a few percent worse than
> native/patched, so its not like its a desperate problem to defer
> implementing it. (I.e, requiring patching just raises the
> implementation barrier for a pv_ops backend.)
>
Well, this approach could be used, but it is overloading a bit and does
make some extra burden on the backends. Can't argue that.
> Overloading patching for dealing with module exports is interesting, but
> well, I guess I don't see the problem in just exporting paravirt_ops.
> The two arguments I've seen against it are "security" and "GPL issues",
> but neither seems particularly good.
>
Yes, I agree on that. The other argument was "interface flux".
So, Rusty, back to splitting exports or just EXPORT_SYMBOL the thing?
Zach
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2007-04-23 22:24 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 15+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2007-04-20 1:53 [RFC, PATCH 5/5] Paravirt_ops export.patch Zachary Amsden
2007-04-20 5:10 ` Jeremy Fitzhardinge
2007-04-22 14:28 ` Eric W. Biederman
2007-04-22 16:20 ` Jeremy Fitzhardinge
2007-04-22 16:59 ` Zachary Amsden
2007-04-22 17:31 ` Jeremy Fitzhardinge
2007-04-23 20:53 ` Zachary Amsden
2007-04-23 21:14 ` Eric W. Biederman
2007-04-23 21:40 ` Zachary Amsden
2007-04-23 21:29 ` Jeremy Fitzhardinge
2007-04-23 21:54 ` Zachary Amsden
2007-04-23 22:15 ` Jeremy Fitzhardinge
2007-04-23 22:24 ` Zachary Amsden [this message]
2007-04-23 22:29 ` Andi Kleen
2007-04-22 23:57 ` Rusty Russell
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=462D3219.9080301@vmware.com \
--to=zach@vmware.com \
--cc=ak@muc.de \
--cc=akpm@osdl.org \
--cc=chrisw@sous-sol.org \
--cc=ebiederm@xmission.com \
--cc=jeremy@goop.org \
--cc=mingo@elte.hu \
--cc=petr@vmware.com \
--cc=virtualization@lists.osdl.org \
--cc=zamsden@gmail.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).