From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1752626AbXCHUHz (ORCPT ); Thu, 8 Mar 2007 15:07:55 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1752627AbXCHUHz (ORCPT ); Thu, 8 Mar 2007 15:07:55 -0500 Received: from 216-99-217-87.dsl.aracnet.com ([216.99.217.87]:56468 "EHLO sous-sol.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752626AbXCHUHy (ORCPT ); Thu, 8 Mar 2007 15:07:54 -0500 Date: Thu, 8 Mar 2007 11:47:40 -0800 From: Chris Wright To: Jeremy Fitzhardinge Cc: Chris Wright , Daniel Arai , Virtualization Mailing List , akpm@linux-foundation.org, john stultz , tglx@linutronix.de, Ingo Molnar , LKML Subject: Re: + stupid-hack-to-make-mainline-build.patch added to -mm tree Message-ID: <20070308194740.GJ10574@sequoia.sous-sol.org> References: <45EF0CF5.5090305@goop.org> <45EF175D.6030609@vmware.com> <1173302503.24738.795.camel@localhost.localdomain> <45EF372E.7030600@goop.org> <1173308717.24738.898.camel@localhost.localdomain> <45EF49E9.7040509@vmware.com> <1173313373.24738.937.camel@localhost.localdomain> <45EF6077.9090302@vmware.com> <20070308182456.GH19575@sequoia.sous-sol.org> <45F06720.8080901@goop.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <45F06720.8080901@goop.org> User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.2.2i Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org * Jeremy Fitzhardinge (jeremy@goop.org) wrote: > Chris Wright wrote: > > * Daniel Arai (arai@vmware.com) wrote: > > > >> There's no good way to override __send_IPI_shortcut. I suppose we could add > >> paravirt ops for __send_IPI_shortcut and every other op that touches the APIC. > >> > > > > While that's basically what we did in Xen, it would make more sense to > > build it into genapic which would give us one common abstraction to base > > from. We should avoid adding pv_ops when existing infrastructure exists. > > I was looking at cutting in at a much higher level. The interface in > is a good match for Xen, so I was going to investigate > making pv_ops at that level and see how it falls out. I agree with that, but I think that's esp. for things like create and launch new vcpu. The IPI bit I'm not as clear on, nor running this all on native as well. thanks, -chris