On Thu, 2008-10-30 at 14:42 -0700, H. Peter Anvin wrote: > James Bottomley wrote: > > > > Before you advocate this, think what it would entail. Voyager replaces > > (and has to replace because its not apic based) the entirety of smp.c > > and smpboot.c ... they'd all have to be abstracted through function > > pointers. > > > > ... or through patched direct calls, which is of course also a possibility. Yes ... been having IRC conversations about that. We'd need to use runtime patching to fix the performance regressions virtualisation has been causing us first ... but then we could use it for voyager. James -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-next" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
