[lkml]   [2006]   [Aug]   [7]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: [PATCH 3/4] x86 paravirt_ops: implementation of paravirt_ops
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
More majordomo info at
Please read the FAQ at

 \ /
  Last update: 2006-08-07 08:01    [W:0.059 / U:8.228 seconds]
©2003-2018 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site