Re: [PATCH 0/10] Tree fixes for PARAVIRT

[Zachary Amsden]

On Fri, 2008-01-18 at 22:37 +0100, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> * Ingo Molnar <mingo@xxxxxxx> wrote:
> 
> > > The first fix is not even specific for PARAVIRT, and it's actually 
> > > preventing the whole tree from booting.
> > 
> > on CONFIG_EFI, indeed :)
> 
> but in exchange you broke all of 32-bit with CONFIG_PARAVIRT=y. Which 
> means you did not even build-test it on 32-bit, let alone boot test 
> it...

Why are we rushing so much to do 64-bit paravirt that we are breaking
working configurations?  If the developement is going to be this
chaotic, it should be done and tested out of tree until it can
stabilize.

I do not like having to continuously retest and review the x86 branch
because the paravirt-ops are constantly in flux and the 32-bit code
keeps breaking.

We won't be doing 64-bit paravirt-ops for exactly this reason - is there
a serious justification from the performance angle on modern 64-bit
hardware?  If not, why justify the complexity and hackery to Linux?

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/