On Fri, 2008-01-18 at 22:37 +0100, Ingo Molnar wrote: > * Ingo Molnar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > The first fix is not even specific for PARAVIRT, and it's actually > > > preventing the whole tree from booting. > > > > on CONFIG_EFI, indeed :) > > but in exchange you broke all of 32-bit with CONFIG_PARAVIRT=y. Which > means you did not even build-test it on 32-bit, let alone boot test > it...
Why are we rushing so much to do 64-bit paravirt that we are breaking working configurations? If the developement is going to be this chaotic, it should be done and tested out of tree until it can stabilize. I do not like having to continuously retest and review the x86 branch because the paravirt-ops are constantly in flux and the 32-bit code keeps breaking. We won't be doing 64-bit paravirt-ops for exactly this reason - is there a serious justification from the performance angle on modern 64-bit hardware? If not, why justify the complexity and hackery to Linux? Zach -- 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/
