Messages in this thread | | | Subject | Re: [PATCH -tip] x86: move vmware to hypervisor | From | Alok Kataria <> | Date | Wed, 25 Mar 2009 10:24:13 -0700 |
| |
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 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.
Thanks, Alok
> > -- > JSR > > > > >
| |