Re: [PATCH 4/4] x86 paravirt_ops: binary patching infrastructure

On Monday 07 August 2006 06:48, Rusty Russell wrote:

>  
> +#ifdef CONFIG_PARAVIRT
> +void apply_paravirt(struct paravirt_patch *start, struct paravirt_patch *end)

It would be better to merge this with the existing LOCK prefix patching
or perhaps the normal alternative() patcher (is there any particular
reason you can't use it?)

Three alternative patching mechanisms just seems to be too many

-Andi
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [email protected]
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/

---

• Follow-Ups:
  • Re: [PATCH 4/4] x86 paravirt_ops: binary patching infrastructure
    • From: Jeremy Fitzhardinge <[email protected]>

• References:
  • [PATCH 1/4] x86 paravirt_ops: create no_paravirt.h for native ops
    • From: Rusty Russell <[email protected]>
  • [PATCH 3/4] x86 paravirt_ops: implementation of paravirt_ops
    • From: Rusty Russell <[email protected]>
  • [PATCH 4/4] x86 paravirt_ops: binary patching infrastructure
    • From: Rusty Russell <[email protected]>

• Prev by Date: Re: [PATCH 2/4] x86 paravirt_ops: paravirt_desc.h for native descriptor ops.
• Next by Date: Re: [PATCH 3/4] x86 paravirt_ops: implementation of paravirt_ops
• Previous by thread: Re: [PATCH 4/4] x86 paravirt_ops: binary patching infrastructure
• Next by thread: Re: [PATCH 4/4] x86 paravirt_ops: binary patching infrastructure
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread

[Index of Archives]     [Kernel Newbies]     [Netfilter]     [Bugtraq]     [Photo]     [Stuff]     [Gimp]     [Yosemite News]     [MIPS Linux]     [ARM Linux]     [Linux Security]     [Linux RAID]     [Video 4 Linux]     [Linux for the blind]     [Linux Resources]