Jeremy Fitzhardinge wrote: > Rusty Russell wrote: > >> Actually, your paravirt_patch_insns has similar logic anyway, so this >> code could collapse (it should fall back to paravirt_patch_default tho >> IMHO). >> >> > > I wanted to get rid of the table because its now sparse, and possibly > fairly large (since the special save flags & disable is at offset > 0x80). And a switch would be pretty clean anyway. > > How does this look? Compiles, but untested. > That's looking pretty spiffy, if you ask me. Zach
