Andi Kleen 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
The difference is that every hypervisor wants its own patched
instruction sequence, which may require a specialized patching
mechanism. If you're simply patching in calls, then it isn't a big
deal, but you may also want to patch in real inlined code for some
operations (like sti/cli equivalents). The alternatives are to allow
each backend to deal with its own patching (perhaps with common
functions abstracted out as they appear), or have a common set of
patching machinery which can deal with all users. The former seems simpler.
J
-
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/
[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]
