From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: "H. Peter Anvin" Subject: Re: Is: axe read_tscp pvops call. Was: Re: [RFC] ACPI S3 and Xen (suprisingly small\!). Date: Wed, 17 Oct 2012 10:35:15 -0700 Message-ID: <507EEC53.1010309@zytor.com> References: <1350481786-4969-1-git-send-email-konrad.wilk@oracle.com> <507ED6C0.4020503@zytor.com> <20121017161036.GA10691@phenom.dumpdata.com> <507EE1C3.7070300@zytor.com> <20121017165452.GA22740@phenom.dumpdata.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: <20121017165452.GA22740@phenom.dumpdata.com> Sender: linux-acpi-owner@vger.kernel.org To: Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, xen-devel@lists.xensource.com, lenb@kernel.org, linux-acpi@vger.kernel.org, x86@kernel.org List-Id: xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org On 10/17/2012 09:54 AM, Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk wrote: >> >> Could you do an audit for other pvops calls that have no users? If >> the *only* user is lguest, we should talk about it, too... > > I can do that - but I don't want to be hasty here. There is a bit of > danger here - for example the read_pmc (or read_tsc) is not in use right > now. But it might be when one starts looking at making perf be able to > analyze the hypervisor (hand-waving the implementation details). So while > removing read_pmc now sounds good, it might be needed in the future. > We do not keep a pvop around just because it "might be needed in the future". That's just crazy. -hpa -- H. Peter Anvin, Intel Open Source Technology Center I work for Intel. I don't speak on their behalf.