Jeremy Fitzhardinge wrote: > Zachary Amsden wrote: > >> This turned out really hideous looking to me. Can't we split the >> struct into GPL'd and non-GPL'd functions instead? We still have the >> same granularity, and none of this function call to an indirect >> function call nonsense. >> > > It's not pretty, but I think having paravirt_ops and paravirt_ops_gpl > would be worse. I'd be sympathetic to the idea of splitting > paravirt_ops up by function groupings, but splitting it by license seems > like a maintenance headache with no real upside. Besides, patching will > solve everything (tm). > Ok. As long as we plan on patching CR2 and CR0 / clts accessors for FPU save during context switch and page fault paths in the future.
