Alok Kataria wrote:
We don't have a quorum to create a consensus, since we only have a
subset of the relevant parties present.
We can get away with that if we agree on a standard that includes
postive definition.
> 1. This solution really bloats the kernel, below are few observations
You have no basis for that assertion.
> i) What happens if two ABI signature blocks define a cpuid leaf which
We already have this situation in a number of places. The answer is
generally that there is one form that the kernel prefer over another (in
CPUID space, leaf 80000006 over leaf 2, for example) because it is
better designed/more reliable/mode complete.
> ii) Also, think about a case where a hypervisor supports 2 such ABI
The standard way to handle that in CPUID space is to leave the
unimplemented leaf as zero.
> I do understand that there are ways to handle this in the kernel but at
The complexity is relatively minor.
> 2. Also as a side note, what you are proposing just breaks down the
It gives individual sub-APIs positive identification. This is similar
to PCI capabilities, for example.
> 3. All in all, the end result of doing this would be that each
As I said, I don't think we have any kind of quorum to declare such a
"standard", and we'll see violations with failures as a result.
-hpa
--
| Davide Libenzi | [patch 7/8] fdmap v2 - implement sys_socket2 |
| Greg Kroah-Hartman | [PATCH 018/196] coda: convert struct class_device to struct device |
| Bart Van Assche | Integration of SCST in the mainstream Linux kernel |
| David Newall | Re: Slow DOWN, please!!! |
git: | |
| Christoph Lameter | Network latency regressions from 2.6.22 to 2.6.29 |
| David Miller | Re: [PATCH] pkt_sched: Destroy gen estimators under rtnl_lock(). |
| Arjan van de Ven | Re: [GIT]: Networking |
| Gerrit Renker | [PATCH 27/37] dccp: Integration of dynamic feature activation - part 2 (server side) |
