> > Compare approaches: > > > > 1. xen overwritten approach (patches V2, x86_init, osl approach) > > Pros: > > a little simpler code > > Cons: > > 1). specific to xen, cannot extend to other virt platform; > > 2). need to change natvie acpi_pad as modular; > > > > 2. paravirt interface approach (original patches V1) > > Pros: > > 1). standard hypervisor-agnostic interface (USENIX conference > > 2006), can easily hook to Xen/lguest/... on demand; 2). arch > > independent; 3). no need to change native acpi_pad as > > non-modular; Cons: > > a little complicated code, and code patching is some > > overkilled for this case (but no harm); > > > > (BTW, in the future we need add more and more pv ops, like pv_pm_ops, > > pv_cpu_hotplug_ops, pv_mem_hotplug_ops, etc. So how about add a > > pv_misc_ops template to handle them all? seems it's a common issue). > > I think (and you probabaly have a better idea) is that the maintainer of drivers/acpi/* is not very open to adding in code that only benefits Xen. If it benefits other architectures (say ARM) then adding in hooks there (in osl for example) makes sense - but I am not sure if ARM has a form of _PUR code/calls it needs to do. So with that in mind, neither of those options seems proper - as all of them depend on changing something in drivers/acpi/*. I've one or two suggestions of what could be done to still make this work, but I need you to first see what happens if the native acpi_pad runs under Xen with the latest upstream code (along with three patches that are in a BZ I pointed you too). -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-acpi" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
