Re: [PATCH] paravirt.h
From: Arjan van de Ven
Date: Wed Aug 23 2006 - 04:54:28 EST
On Wed, 2006-08-23 at 01:44 -0700, Zachary Amsden wrote:
> Arjan van de Ven wrote:
> >> Since this code is so rather, um, custom, I was going to reimplement
> >> stop_machine in the module.
> > that sounds like a big mistake. I assume you want your VMI module to be
> > part of mainline for one.
> > And this is the sort of thing that if we want to support it, we better
> > support it inside the main kernel, eg provide an api to modules to use
> > it, rather than having each module hack their own....
> Yes, after discussion with Rusty, it appears that beefing up
> stop_machine_run is the right way to go. And it has benefits for
> non-paravirt code as well, such as allowing plug-in kprobes or oprofile
> extension modules to be loaded without having to deal with a debug
> exception or NMI during module load/unload.
it's more than stop_machine; If we do allow this I think this has to be
a register_virtualization() function that does the lot. In common code.
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/