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

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



Andi Kleen wrote:
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've always found the term "HAL" to be vague to the point of meaningless. What would it mean in this case: "hypervisor abstraction layer"? It certainly doesn't attempt abstract all hardware.

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

Some calls just don't need patching; an indirect call is fast enough, and simple. But I can't think of a good reason to not patch patchable calls, other than for debugging perhaps (easier to place one breakpoint than one per inline site).

   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]
  Powered by Linux