Re: [PATCH RFC REPOST 1/2] paravirt: refactor struct paravirt_ops into smaller pv_*_ops

[Rusty Russell <rusty@rustcorp.com.au>]

On Thursday 11 October 2007 04:02:50 Jeremy Fitzhardinge wrote:
> >>  struct paravirt_ops paravirt_ops = {
> >
> > ...
> >
> >> +	.pv_info = {
> >> +		.name = "bare hardware",
> >> +		.paravirt_enabled = 0,
> >> +		.kernel_rpl = 0,
> >> +		.shared_kernel_pmd = 1,	/* Only used when CONFIG_X86_PAE is set */
> >> +	},
> >
> > This is the bit I don't get.  Why not just declare struct pv_info pvinfo,
> > etc, and use the declaration of struct paravirt_ops to get your unique
> > offset-based identifiers for patching?
>
> Given an op id number in .parainstructions, the patching code needs to
> be able to index into something to get the corresponding function
> pointer.  If each pv_* structure is its own little unrelated structure,
> then the id has to be a <structure, id> tuple, which just complicates
> things.  If I pack them all into a single structure then it becomes a
> simple offset calculation.

	Sure, but this can actually be a temporary thing inside the patch code (or at 
least static to that file if it's too big for the stack).

	struct paravirt_ops patch_template = { .pv_info = pv_info, .pv_cpu_ops = 
pv_cpu_ops, ... };

	Then you can even rename struct paravirt_ops to "struct patch_template" and 
we're well on the way to making this a generic function-call patching 
mechanism, rather than something paravirt-specific.

Hope that clarifies my thinking...
Rusty.


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