On 10/18/2012 08:56 AM, Dan Magenheimer wrote:
Do you notice that the document you just claimed doesn't even exist at
this point, never mind being somehow enforced? In other word, there is
ABSOLUTELY NO WAY a mainline kernel developer can have any idea what
amount of violence Xen does to the architecture that it is parasiting on.
Of course I know it doesn't exist. I probably should have
noted that in my email. But it should exist because else
subtle issues like this will get lost in the mist of time.
And I have no clue how to enforce it (though some BUILD_BUG_ON
might help).
Do you know for how long I have been yelling at various Xen people for
*not documenting their architecture*? There are plenty of
paravirtualized architectures out there which are perfectly well
documented and supportable, but Xen has resisted doing that for years,
and all we ever get are vague future promises.
-hpa
--
H. Peter Anvin, Intel Open Source Technology Center
I work for Intel. I don't speak on their behalf.
--
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
