H. Peter Anvin wrote: > > I guess what I was trying to say was that we'd use setgpr_wrapper in > the case where you have an entrypoint with native (non-C) semantics; > in the other case we'd use an alternative to setgpr_wrapper. Either > way, it sounds like we're talking about implementing > paravirtualization *after* CPU selection, i.e. we use IPI to get the > thing running on the proper CPU before invoking the paravirtualization > function? Yes, re-implementing the IPI support is rather unuseful. Zach _______________________________________________ Virtualization mailing list Virtualization@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.linux-foundation.org/mailman/listinfo/virtualization
