Rusty Russell wrote:
> 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.
>
Hm, I see. I'm not quite sure that's the best way to achieve a generic
result, but I see your point.
> Hope that clarifies my thinking...
Well, I'd agree with making the code more generic if another user
appears, but I'd rather not do it prematurely.
Sorry, I forgot to update lguest. I'll do that and repost (but I won't
have had a chance to test it).
Are you otherwise happy with the patch in its current form? And are you
happy with the lazymode changes?
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]
