On Wed, Jul 28, 2010 at 06:10:59PM -0400, Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 26, 2010 at 11:41:50AM +0530, Srivatsa Vaddagiri wrote:
> > This patch-series implements paravirt-spinlock implementation for KVM guests,
> > based heavily on Xen's implementation. I tried to refactor Xen's spinlock
> > implementation to make it common for both Xen and KVM - but found that
> > few differences between Xen and KVM (Xen has the ability to block on a
> > particular event/irq for example) _and_ the fact that the guest kernel
> > can be compiled to support both Xen and KVM hypervisors (CONFIG_XEN and
> > CONFIG_KVM_GUEST can both be turned on) makes the "common" code a eye-sore.
> > There will have to be:
> >
> > if (xen) {
> > ...
> > } else if (kvm) {
> > ..
> > }
> >
> > or possibly:
> >
> > alternative(NOP, some_xen_specific_call, ....)
>
> Why not utilize the pvops path?
Duh. You did use it. Sorry about the noise.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe kvm" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
