Re: [PATCH 3/4] x86 paravirt_ops: implementation of paravirt_ops
From: Jeremy Fitzhardinge
Date: Mon Aug 07 2006 - 01:59:49 EST
Andi Kleen wrote:
On Monday 07 August 2006 06:47, Rusty Russell wrote:
This patch does the dumbest possible replacement of paravirtualized
instructions: calls through a "paravirt_ops" structure. Currently
these are function implementations of native hardware: hypervisors
will override the ops structure with their own variants.
You should call it HAL - that would make it clearer what it is.
I've always found the term "HAL" to be vague to the point of
meaningless. What would it mean in this case: "hypervisor abstraction
layer"? It certainly doesn't attempt abstract all hardware.
I think I would prefer to patch always. Is there a particular
reason you can't do that?
Some calls just don't need patching; an indirect call is fast enough,
and simple. But I can't think of a good reason to not patch patchable
calls, other than for debugging perhaps (easier to place one breakpoint
than one per inline site).
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/