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

> > I think I would prefer to patch always. Is there a particular
> > reason you can't do that?
> 
> We could patch all the indirect calls into direct calls, but I don't
> think it's worth bothering: most simply don't matter.

I still think it would be better to patch always.

> Each backend wants a different patch, so alternative() doesn't cut it.
> We could look at generalizing alternative() I guess, but it works fine
> so I didn't want to touch it.

You could at least use a common function (with the replacement passed
in as argument) for lock prefixes and your stuff

-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]>

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

• Prev by Date: Re: [PATCH 1/4] x86 paravirt_ops: create no_paravirt.h for native ops
• Next by Date: Re: [PATCH 1/4] x86 paravirt_ops: create no_paravirt.h for native ops
• Previous by thread: Re: [PATCH 3/4] x86 paravirt_ops: implementation of paravirt_ops
• 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]