[lkml]   [2008]   [Jan]   [18]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: [PATCH 0/10] Tree fixes for PARAVIRT
On Fri, 2008-01-18 at 22:37 +0100, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> * Ingo Molnar <> wrote:
> > > The first fix is not even specific for PARAVIRT, and it's actually
> > > preventing the whole tree from booting.
> >
> > on CONFIG_EFI, indeed :)
> but in exchange you broke all of 32-bit with CONFIG_PARAVIRT=y. Which
> means you did not even build-test it on 32-bit, let alone boot test
> it...

Why are we rushing so much to do 64-bit paravirt that we are breaking
working configurations? If the developement is going to be this
chaotic, it should be done and tested out of tree until it can

I do not like having to continuously retest and review the x86 branch
because the paravirt-ops are constantly in flux and the 32-bit code
keeps breaking.

We won't be doing 64-bit paravirt-ops for exactly this reason - is there
a serious justification from the performance angle on modern 64-bit
hardware? If not, why justify the complexity and hackery to Linux?


 \ /
  Last update: 2008-01-18 22:51    [W:0.035 / U:8.416 seconds]
©2003-2018 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site