On Thu 2007-03-08 14:39:15, Zachary Amsden wrote:
> Ingo Molnar wrote:
> >* Zachary Amsden <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> >
> >>Ingo, either you or Thomas have vetoed every attempt we have made to
> >>make our code operate with clockevents. [...]
> >>
> >
> >this is news to me - do you have any proof of such a veto?
> >
>
> Yes, your refusal to discuss any technical details when asked point
> blank which solution you prefer, and your continued whining and
> threatening to unmerge our code.
Failing to answer a question is hardly a veto.
> And I ask again for your feedback on which approach you think is correct:
> 1) Rewrite the interrupt subsystem of our hypervisor, making it
> incompatible with full virtualization, so that we can support an
> abstract interrupt controller with a "clean" interface
> 2) Reuse the same method that HPET, PIT and other time clients in i386
> use - the global_clock_event pointer which allows you to wrest control
> back from the APIC and reuse the lapic_events local clockevents.
...
Do all of them then decide which code is nicest. I mean... this looks
like trap question for Ingo. He tells you 2, you'll do crappy
implementation of 2, and then claim Ingo can't object.
Pavel
--
(english) http://www.livejournal.com/~pavelmachek
(cesky, pictures)
http://atrey.karlin.mff.cuni.cz/~pavel/picture/horses/blog.html
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
