[PATCH 3/4] x86 paravirt_ops: implementation of paravirt_ops

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



Andi Kleen wrote:
> On Monday 07 August 2006 06:47, Rusty Russell wrote:
>   
>> This patch does the dumbest possible replacement of paravirtualized
>> instructions: calls through a "paravirt_ops" structure.  Currently
>> these are function implementations of native hardware: hypervisors
>> will override the ops structure with their own variants.
>>     
>
> You should call it HAL - that would make it clearer what it is.
>   

I've always found the term "HAL" to be vague to the point of 
meaningless.  What would it mean in this case:  "hypervisor abstraction 
layer"?  It certainly doesn't attempt abstract all hardware.

> I think I would prefer to patch always. Is there a particular
> reason you can't do that?
>   

Some calls just don't need patching; an indirect call is fast enough, 
and simple.  But I can't think of a good reason to not patch patchable 
calls, other than for debugging perhaps (easier to place one breakpoint 
than one per inline site).

    J


[Index of Archives]     [KVM Development]     [Libvirt Development]     [Libvirt Users]     [CentOS Virtualization]     [Netdev]     [Ethernet Bridging]     [Linux Wireless]     [Kernel Newbies]     [Security]     [Linux for Hams]     [Netfilter]     [Bugtraq]     [Yosemite Forum]     [MIPS Linux]     [ARM Linux]     [Linux RAID]     [Linux Admin]     [Samba]

  Powered by Linux