Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1765139AbXHOPJB (ORCPT ); Wed, 15 Aug 2007 11:09:01 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1763897AbXHOPIl (ORCPT ); Wed, 15 Aug 2007 11:08:41 -0400 Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([66.187.233.31]:34667 "EHLO mx1.redhat.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1764713AbXHOPIi (ORCPT ); Wed, 15 Aug 2007 11:08:38 -0400 Message-ID: <46C31736.2050001@redhat.com> Date: Wed, 15 Aug 2007 12:09:42 -0300 From: Glauber de Oliveira Costa User-Agent: Thunderbird 1.5.0.12 (X11/20070719) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Andi Kleen CC: Glauber de Oliveira Costa , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, akpm@linux-foundation.org, rusty@rustcorp.com.au, mingo@elte.hu, chrisw@sous-sol.org, jeremy@goop.org, avi@qumranet.com, anthony@codemonkey.ws, virtualization@lists.linux-foundation.org, lguest@ozlabs.org, Steven Rostedt Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/25][V3] irq_flags / halt routines References: <11871821854176-git-send-email-gcosta@redhat.com> <1187182197314-git-send-email-gcosta@redhat.com> <11871822062386-git-send-email-gcosta@redhat.com> <11871822163867-git-send-email-gcosta@redhat.com> <20070815135554.GE3406@bingen.suse.de> <5d6222a80708150718v14f26343q7467385e7919fa76@mail.gmail.com> <20070815154243.GH3406@bingen.suse.de> In-Reply-To: <20070815154243.GH3406@bingen.suse.de> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1345 Lines: 34 Andi Kleen escreveu: > On Wed, Aug 15, 2007 at 11:18:25AM -0300, Glauber de Oliveira Costa wrote: >>> Didn't we agree this should be a pvops client? >>> >>> -Andi >>> >> No. I exposed my reasoning, asked you back, but got no answer. >> I'll do it again: >> >> This operations are just manipulating bits, and are doing no >> privileged operations at all. Nothing that can be paravirtualized, in > > It's talking to a Hypervisor. That is privileged enough. > Please do that change. If you add so many more ifdefs it's your > duty to keep the overall number low. Again, this is the code of such function: static inline int raw_irqs_disabled_flags(unsigned long flags) { return !(flags & X86_EFLAGS_IF); } so all it is doing is getting a parameter (flags), and bitmasking it. It is not talking to any hypervisor. I can't see your point. Unless you are arguing that it _should_ be talking to a hypervisor. Is that your point? If it is the case, please tell me why. My current understanding is that we want to keep few changes from the normal kernel. So there is not too much reason for it. - 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/