Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk wrote: >>> 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). Konrad, any new idea? seems we hardly totally walk around acpi staff. Thanks, Jinsong-- 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
