Re: [PATCH 3/4] x86 paravirt_ops: implementation of paravirt_ops

[Rusty Russell]

On Mon, 2006-08-07 at 08:20 +0200, Andi Kleen wrote:
> > > I think I would prefer to patch always. Is there a particular
> > > reason you can't do that?
> > 
> > We could patch all the indirect calls into direct calls, but I don't
> > think it's worth bothering: most simply don't matter.
> 
> I still think it would be better to patch always.

Actually, I just figured out a neat way to do this without having to
handle all the cases by hand.  I'll try it and get back to you...

> > Each backend wants a different patch, so alternative() doesn't cut it.
> > We could look at generalizing alternative() I guess, but it works fine
> > so I didn't want to touch it.
> 
> You could at least use a common function (with the replacement passed
> in as argument) for lock prefixes and your stuff

I don't want to rule out patching based on location (reg lifetime etc),
but there's definitely room for combining these two.  Good point.

Thanks!
Rusty.
-- 
Help! Save Australia from the worst of the DMCA: http://linux.org.au/law

-
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/