Date:   Sun, 12 Mar 2023 21:47:38 +0100
From:   Borislav Petkov <bp@alien8.de>
To:     Juergen Gross <jgross@suse.com>
Cc:     linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, x86@kernel.org,
        virtualization@lists.linux-foundation.org,
        "Srivatsa S. Bhat (VMware)" <srivatsa@csail.mit.edu>,
        Alexey Makhalov <amakhalov@vmware.com>,
        VMware PV-Drivers Reviewers <pv-drivers@vmware.com>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>,
        Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@linux.intel.com>,
        "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@zytor.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] x86/paravirt: convert simple paravirt functions to asm
Message-ID: <20230312204738.GCZA46aqNzDRjqVF/u@fat_crate.local>
References: <20230308154210.18454-1-jgross@suse.com>
 <20230309133950.GDZAnhpnon5fk4Fg/X@fat_crate.local>
 <e7e42a4b-cf0d-d6ad-2f66-0f52898e818a@suse.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <e7e42a4b-cf0d-d6ad-2f66-0f52898e818a@suse.com>
Precedence: bulk

On Fri, Mar 10, 2023 at 07:24:17AM +0100, Juergen Gross wrote:
> The "normal" cases not using alternatives should rather be switched to
> static calls.

Or that.

> Whether it is possible to mix a static call with alternatives needs to
> be evaluated.

I'd prefer not to mix them. Either should be fine and if neither have
the required functionality, then it should be added depending on which
- static calls or alternatives - would make things simpler.

I'd love to get rid of the whole paravirt glue and use the facilities we
have in the tree instead.

But no hurry - it should be nice and clean work. :-)

-- 
Regards/Gruss,
    Boris.

https://people.kernel.org/tglx/notes-about-netiquette