On Wednesday 10 October 2007 04:24:24 Jeremy Fitzhardinge wrote:
> [ I think this is a straight repost this patch, which addresses all the
> previous comments. I'd like to submit this for .24 as the basis for a
> unified paravirt_ops. Any objections? ]
Thanks Jeremy, I've actually taken time to finally review this in detail (I'm
assuming you'll refactor as necessary after the x86 arch merger).
> + OFFSET(PARAVIRT_enabled, pv_info, paravirt_enabled);
I think this gives the right answer for the wrong reasons?
> +struct paravirt_ops paravirt_ops;
> +
Do you actually need to define this? See below...
> +DEF_NATIVE(, ud2a, "ud2a");
Hmm, that's ugly. It was ugly before, but it's uglier now. Maybe just
use "unsigned char ud2a[] = { 0x0f, 0x0b };" in paravirt_patch_default?
> }
>
> struct paravirt_ops paravirt_ops = {
...
> + .pv_info = {
> + .name = "bare hardware",
> + .paravirt_enabled = 0,
> + .kernel_rpl = 0,
> + .shared_kernel_pmd = 1, /* Only used when CONFIG_X86_PAE is set
> */
> + },
This is the bit I don't get. Why not just declare struct pv_info pvinfo, etc,
and use the declaration of struct paravirt_ops to get your unique
offset-based identifiers for patching?
Rest looks fine...
Thanks!
Rusty.
-
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/
