Re: [PATCH RFC 0/4] Paravirt-spinlock implementation for KVM guests(Version 0)

[Avi Kivity]

 On 07/26/2010 09:11 AM, Srivatsa Vaddagiri wrote:
> This patch-series implements paravirt-spinlock implementation for KVM guests,
> based heavily on Xen's implementation. I tried to refactor Xen's spinlock
> implementation to make it common for both Xen and KVM - but found that
> few differences between Xen and KVM (Xen has the ability to block on a
> particular event/irq for example) _and_ the fact that the guest kernel
> can be compiled to support both Xen and KVM hypervisors (CONFIG_XEN and
> CONFIG_KVM_GUEST can both be turned on) makes the "common" code a eye-sore.
> There will have to be:
>
> 	if (xen) {
> 		...
> 	} else if (kvm) {
> 		..
> 	}
>
> or possibly:
>
> 	alternative(NOP, some_xen_specific_call, ....)
>
> type of code in the common implementation.

I do think things are pretty common.  If that is the only issue, you can 
use a plain function vector, no?

--
error compiling committee.c: too many arguments to function

--
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/