Rusty Russell wrote:
> Sure, but this can actually be a temporary thing inside the patch code (or at
> least static to that file if it's too big for the stack).
>
> struct paravirt_ops patch_template = { .pv_info = pv_info, .pv_cpu_ops =
> pv_cpu_ops, ... };
>
> Then you can even rename struct paravirt_ops to "struct patch_template" and
> we're well on the way to making this a generic function-call patching
> mechanism, rather than something paravirt-specific.
>
Hm, I see. I'm not quite sure that's the best way to achieve a generic
result, but I see your point.
> Hope that clarifies my thinking...
Well, I'd agree with making the code more generic if another user
appears, but I'd rather not do it prematurely.
Sorry, I forgot to update lguest. I'll do that and repost (but I won't
have had a chance to test it).
Are you otherwise happy with the patch in its current form? And are you
happy with the lazymode changes?
J
_______________________________________________
Virtualization mailing list
Virtualization@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://lists.linux-foundation.org/mailman/listinfo/virtualization
