From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Zachary Amsden Subject: Re: huh startup_ipi_hook? Date: Mon, 30 Apr 2007 14:40:49 -0700 Message-ID: <46366261.3070901@vmware.com> References: <4632F653.3000102@goop.org> <46363662.40806@vmware.com> <46363B5D.7060101@goop.org> <463652FE.9080604@vmware.com> <46365A0F.9040901@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: <46365A0F.9040901@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: > I think the more things we can devolve out of paravirt_ops the better, > especially if they make well-defined self-contained interfaces of their > own. I would be open, for example, to moving all the pagetable and > privileged instruction operations out into their own _ops interfaces > (but not right now). > I think this trend of moving things into smaller compact interfaces is the right way to go, and certainly the apic stuff can devolve, as well as privileged / pagetable ops. We can target that for .23, and it would go quite a ways towards giving a better foundation for x86_64 (even non-x86) paravirt to build on. Zach