Re: [PATCH 3/4] x86 paravirt_ops: implementation of paravirt_ops

On Monday 07 August 2006 06:47, Rusty Russell wrote:
> This patch does the dumbest possible replacement of paravirtualized
> instructions: calls through a "paravirt_ops" structure.  Currently
> these are function implementations of native hardware: hypervisors
> will override the ops structure with their own variants.

You should call it HAL - that would make it clearer what it is.

I think I would prefer to patch always. Is there a particular
reason you can't do that?

-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 3/4] x86 paravirt_ops: implementation of paravirt_ops
    • From: Rusty Russell <[email protected]>
  • Re: [PATCH 3/4] x86 paravirt_ops: implementation of paravirt_ops
    • 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 2/4] x86 paravirt_ops: paravirt_desc.h for native descriptor ops.
    • From: Rusty Russell <[email protected]>
  • [PATCH 3/4] x86 paravirt_ops: implementation of paravirt_ops
    • From: Rusty Russell <[email protected]>

• Prev by Date: Re: [PATCH 4/4] x86 paravirt_ops: binary patching infrastructure
• Next by Date: Re: [RFC/PATCH] revoke/frevoke system calls V2
• Previous by thread: Re: [PATCH 4/4] x86 paravirt_ops: binary patching infrastructure
• Next by thread: Re: [PATCH 3/4] x86 paravirt_ops: implementation of paravirt_ops
• 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]