Chris Wright wrote:
> Yes, and I think we can still improve performance although I can't see
> anyway to help out the modular case, so I guess it will have to incur
> the hit that's always been there.
Broaden the paravirt patching machinery?
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/
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: LSM conversion to static interface [revert patch]
- From: Arjan van de Ven <[email protected]>
- Re: LSM conversion to static interface [revert patch]
- From: Chris Wright <[email protected]>
- Re: LSM conversion to static interface [revert patch]
- References:
- Re: LSM conversion to static interface
- From: Linus Torvalds <[email protected]>
- Re: LSM conversion to static interface
- From: Andreas Gruenbacher <[email protected]>
- Re: LSM conversion to static interface
- From: Linus Torvalds <[email protected]>
- Re: LSM conversion to static interface
- From: Jan Engelhardt <[email protected]>
- Re: LSM conversion to static interface
- From: James Morris <[email protected]>
- Re: LSM conversion to static interface [revert patch]
- From: Arjan van de Ven <[email protected]>
- Re: LSM conversion to static interface [revert patch]
- From: Chris Wright <[email protected]>
- Re: LSM conversion to static interface
- Prev by Date: Re: [PATCH] defxx.c: dfx_bus_init() is __devexit not __devinit
- Next by Date: Re: LSM conversion to static interface [revert patch]
- Previous by thread: Re: LSM conversion to static interface [revert patch]
- Next by thread: Re: LSM conversion to static interface [revert patch]
- Index(es):
 |