* Jeremy Fitzhardinge ([email protected]) wrote: > 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? Yup, that's essentially what we've been talking about. thanks, -chris - 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/
- 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 [revert patch]
- From: Jeremy Fitzhardinge <[email protected]>
- Re: LSM conversion to static interface
- Prev by Date: Re: LSM conversion to static interface [revert patch]
- Next by Date: [PATCH 1/?] Unlock when sn_oemdata can't be extended
- Previous by thread: Re: LSM conversion to static interface [revert patch]
- Next by thread: Re: LSM conversion to static interface [revert patch]
- Index(es):
 |