proposed interface change for setting the ldt

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

 



On Fri, 2006-08-18 at 20:41 -0700, Zachary Amsden wrote:
> Chris Wright wrote:
> > * Zachary Amsden (zach at vmware.com) wrote:
> >   
> >> The paravirt-op just got a lot harder to implement, so there is a cost 
> >> to the simpler interface.
> >>     
> >
> > I'm missing why it's a lot harder.  Seems reasonably straight forward.
> > puzzled...
> >   
> 
> Before it could be a direct call for us.  Now I am forced to write a 
> wrapper function around it which does exactly the same work as the 
> native code, them calls a ROM function.  It is straight forward, but 
> obviously undesirable.

It sounds fine to me, although I'd like to see the patch.  I don't have
anything against higher-level abstractions, if it helps any hypervisor,
as long as it doesn't warp the kernel code.  And if most hypervisors and
native break it down the same way, well, we can always create helpers.

Cheers,
Rusty.
-- 
Help! Save Australia from the worst of the DMCA: http://linux.org.au/law



[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