[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:0.020 / U:2.484 seconds]
    ©2003-2016 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site