Re: [PATCH RFC REPOST 1/2] paravirt: refactor struct paravirt_ops into smaller pv_*_ops

[Jeremy Fitzhardinge <jeremy@goop.org>]

Rusty Russell wrote:
> 	Sure, but this can actually be a temporary thing inside the patch code (or at 
> least static to that file if it's too big for the stack).
>
> 	struct paravirt_ops patch_template = { .pv_info = pv_info, .pv_cpu_ops = 
> pv_cpu_ops, ... };
>
> 	Then you can even rename struct paravirt_ops to "struct patch_template" and 
> we're well on the way to making this a generic function-call patching 
> mechanism, rather than something paravirt-specific.
>   

Hm, I see.  I'm not quite sure that's the best way to achieve a generic
result, but I see your point.

> Hope that clarifies my thinking...

Well, I'd agree with making the code more generic if another user
appears, but I'd rather not do it prematurely.

Sorry, I forgot to update lguest.  I'll do that and repost (but I won't
have had a chance to test it).

Are you otherwise happy with the patch in its current form?  And are you
happy with the lazymode changes?

    J