[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:0.019 / U:7.400 seconds]
    ©2003-2017 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site