lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2009]   [Mar]   [25]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
SubjectRe: [PATCH -tip] x86: move vmware to hypervisor
From
Date
On Wed, 2009-03-25 at 10:38 -0700, Jaswinder Singh Rajput wrote:
> On Wed, 2009-03-25 at 10:24 -0700, Alok Kataria wrote:
> > On Wed, 2009-03-25 at 10:07 -0700, Jaswinder Singh Rajput wrote:
> > > On Wed, 2009-03-25 at 09:52 -0700, Alok Kataria wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > vmware can be considered a CPU here, so i think making the disabling
> > > > > also depend on PROCESSOR_SELECT.
> > > >
> > > > Ingo, this code is not just to be used by VMware, the reason we did this
> > > > generically was so that a guest could run unaltered on *any* fully
> > > > virtualized hypervisor.
> > > > And give that this code is just a boot setup thing, the only thing this
> > > > patch saves over here is not running the detection code on native
> > > > systems. All the rest of the code is guarded by the
> > > > "boot_cpu_data.x86_hyper_vendor" checks anyways.
> > > >
> > > > I don't really see the point of adding one more config option just for
> > > > this.
> > > >
> > >
> > > Can you please explain what is the point of adding this support all the
> > > time if this is useless for 99.9% of cases. IMHO, it should be optional.
> >
> > First of all, I don't know how did you get to the 99.9% number, though I
> > think its not a point worth debating, just like to share some info with
> > you. More and more people are adopting virtualization now a days and
> > give the trend i don't see just 0.1% people running Linux on virtualized
> > hardware. So though its not a common case there is still a large user
> > base.
>
> I am agree with you there is no point for debate.
>
> If someone need this option, she can enable it and use it.


You seem to be missing the point I raised in the previous mail. Its
below for your reference.

> I am not saying we should not hide this behind a config at all. The
> point is there is nothing that we save by adding a new config, so what's
> the point at all. If you can give me a solid reason like, say, you save
> 1% code space with this config option, or 'n' sec in the boottime, I am
> all ears for such an argument.
>
>

So, if there are any tangible benefits with doing this I am ok with it,
but your current argument about "Freedom to user" doesn't sound too
compelling.

--
Alok



\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2009-03-25 19:21    [from the cache]
©2003-2011 Jasper Spaans