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
Please read the FAQ at