Re: [PATCH 3/4] x86 paravirt_ops: implementation of paravirt_ops

[Jeremy Fitzhardinge]

Andi Kleen wrote:
> On Monday 07 August 2006 06:47, Rusty Russell wrote:
>   
> > This patch does the dumbest possible replacement of paravirtualized
> > instructions: calls through a "paravirt_ops" structure.  Currently
> > these are function implementations of native hardware: hypervisors
> > will override the ops structure with their own variants.
> >     
>
> You should call it HAL - that would make it clearer what it is.
>   

I've always found the term "HAL" to be vague to the point of 
meaningless.  What would it mean in this case:  "hypervisor abstraction 
layer"?  It certainly doesn't attempt abstract all hardware.

> I think I would prefer to patch always. Is there a particular
> reason you can't do that?
>   

Some calls just don't need patching; an indirect call is fast enough, 
and simple.  But I can't think of a good reason to not patch patchable 
calls, other than for debugging perhaps (easier to place one breakpoint 
than one per inline site).

   J
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/