Re: [PATCH] paravirt.h

[Zachary Amsden]

Alan Cox wrote:
> - Stacked hypervisors stomping each others functions
>   

Possibly an issue, but why would you ever want stacked paravirt-ops?  
You're only talking to the hypervisor directly above you, and there is 
only one of those.

> - Locking required to do updates: and remember our lock functions use
> methods in the array
>   

Yes, locking is an issue, but it is possible to do.  You just need to 
stop interrupts, NMIs, and faults on all processors simultaneously.  
Actually, it's not that scary - since you'll be doing it in a hypervisor.

> - If we boot patch inline code to get performance natively its almost
> impossible to then revert that.
>   

You can patch back over it.  I've already implemented the locking and 
repatching bits for VMI.

Zach
-
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/