Subject: Re: next-20081030: voyager compile busted
From: James Bottomley <James.Bottomley@HansenPartnership.com>
To: "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@zytor.com>
Cc: Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>, Alexey Dobriyan <adobriyan@gmail.com>,
       Stephen Rothwell <sfr@canb.auug.org.au>, linux-next@vger.kernel.org,
       linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>,
       Yinghai Lu <yinghai@kernel.org>
In-Reply-To: <490A2A30.5040905@zytor.com>
References: <20081030173030.d8847df6.sfr@canb.auug.org.au>
	 <20081030180323.GA13399@x200.localdomain>
	 <1225398287.19324.1.camel@localhost.localdomain>
	 <20081030205230.GO27407@elte.hu>
	 <1225400283.19324.6.camel@localhost.localdomain>
	 <20081030210704.GA25665@elte.hu>
	 <1225401708.19324.35.camel@localhost.localdomain>
	 <490A2A30.5040905@zytor.com>
Content-Type: text/plain
Date: Thu, 30 Oct 2008 16:47:46 -0500
Message-Id: <1225403266.19324.42.camel@localhost.localdomain>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Content-Length: 867
Lines: 23

On Thu, 2008-10-30 at 14:42 -0700, H. Peter Anvin wrote:
> James Bottomley wrote:
> > 
> > Before you advocate this, think what it would entail.  Voyager replaces
> > (and has to replace because its not apic based) the entirety of smp.c
> > and smpboot.c ... they'd all have to be abstracted through function
> > pointers.
> > 
> 
> ... or through patched direct calls, which is of course also a possibility.

Yes ... been having IRC conversations about that.  We'd need to use
runtime patching to fix the performance regressions virtualisation has
been causing us first ... but then we could use it for voyager.

James


--
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/