On Wed, 4 Aug 2010 07:07:16 am Jeremy Fitzhardinge wrote:
quoted text
> Of course if it becomes core to the x86 architecture or the kernel 
> overall, then most of the irq-related paravirt-ops can go away and be 
> limited to the actual interrupt handler and the machinery needed to 
> really mask/unmask the hardware and set the pending flag (which would 
> likely just be contained within the hypervisor-specific code, and not 
> need any new kernel interfaces to replace the dropped paravirt irq ones).

Yep, we sweat over the cli/sti paravirtual implementations because it's so
common.  If the kernel used soft cli/sti we could simply implement it with
a hypercall and be much happier (though iret possibly still an issue).

Cheers,
Rusty.
--
unsubscribe notice
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/