lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2006]   [Aug]   [7]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [more markup]  [less markup]  [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
DateSun, 06 Aug 2006 22:56:26 -0700
FromJeremy Fitzhardinge <>
SubjectRe: [PATCH 4/4] x86 paravirt_ops: binary patching infrastructure
Andi Kleen wrote:
>> 
>> +#ifdef CONFIG_PARAVIRT
>> +void apply_paravirt(struct paravirt_patch *start, struct paravirt_patch *end)
>> 
>
> It would be better to merge this with the existing LOCK prefix patching
> or perhaps the normal alternative() patcher (is there any particular
> reason you can't use it?)
>
> Three alternative patching mechanisms just seems to be too many

The difference is that every hypervisor wants its own patched 
instruction sequence, which may require a specialized patching 
mechanism.  If you're simply patching in calls, then it isn't a big 
deal, but you may also want to patch in real inlined code for some 
operations (like sti/cli equivalents).  The alternatives are to allow 
each backend to deal with its own patching (perhaps with common 
functions abstracted out as they appear), or have a common set of 
patching machinery which can deal with all users.  The former seems simpler.

    J
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2006-08-07 08:01    [from the cache]
©2003-2008