From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Zachary Amsden Subject: Re: huh startup_ipi_hook? Date: Mon, 30 Apr 2007 13:35:10 -0700 Message-ID: <463652FE.9080604@vmware.com> References: <4632F653.3000102@goop.org> <46363662.40806@vmware.com> <46363B5D.7060101@goop.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: <46363B5D.7060101@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: virtualization@lists.osdl.org, "Eric W. Biederman" List-Id: virtualization@lists.linuxfoundation.org Jeremy Fitzhardinge wrote: > Zachary Amsden wrote: > >> Of course we can create a bunch of new code to use the genapic >> interface. It is just a matter of copying apic.c and io-apic.c >> verbatim and applying the sed command s/apic/vmi_apic/g. >> > > Wouldn't it be cleaner to just change apic.c and io-apic.c to use, say, > apic_ops to get access to the actual hardware, and then you could have > native and vmi versions while sharing the bulk of the code. Isn't that > what genapic is intended to solve anyway? > But the native and vmi versions would be identical. You would be moving the apic_read / apic_write operations from paravirt_ops to apic_ops, which doesn't really solve anything, it just moves it around. Zach