Messages in this thread | | | From | Andi Kleen <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH 3/4] x86 paravirt_ops: implementation of paravirt_ops | Date | Mon, 7 Aug 2006 08:20:09 +0200 |
| |
> > I think I would prefer to patch always. Is there a particular > > reason you can't do that? > > We could patch all the indirect calls into direct calls, but I don't > think it's worth bothering: most simply don't matter.
I still think it would be better to patch always.
> Each backend wants a different patch, so alternative() doesn't cut it. > We could look at generalizing alternative() I guess, but it works fine > so I didn't want to touch it.
You could at least use a common function (with the replacement passed in as argument) for lock prefixes and your stuff
-Andi - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
| |