Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1756415Ab0G1Woo (ORCPT ); Wed, 28 Jul 2010 18:44:44 -0400 Received: from rcsinet10.oracle.com ([148.87.113.121]:46147 "EHLO rcsinet10.oracle.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752485Ab0G1Won (ORCPT >); Wed, 28 Jul 2010 18:44:43 -0400 Date: Wed, 28 Jul 2010 18:42:29 -0400 From: Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk To: Srivatsa Vaddagiri Cc: avi@redhat.com, Marcelo Tosatti , Gleb Natapov , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, npiggin@suse.de, Jeremy Fitzhardinge , kvm@vger.kernel.org, bharata@in.ibm.com, Balbir Singh , Jan Beulich Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC 0/4] Paravirt-spinlock implementation for KVM guests (Version 0) Message-ID: <20100728224229.GA1693@phenom.dumpdata.com> References: <20100726061150.GB21699@linux.vnet.ibm.com> <20100728221059.GA32739@phenom.dumpdata.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20100728221059.GA32739@phenom.dumpdata.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.20 (2009-12-10) X-Source-IP: acsmt355.oracle.com [141.146.40.155] X-Auth-Type: Internal IP X-CT-RefId: str=0001.0A090209.4C50B2C7.0118:SCFMA4539814,ss=1,fgs=0 Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1187 Lines: 29 On Wed, Jul 28, 2010 at 06:10:59PM -0400, Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk wrote: > On Mon, Jul 26, 2010 at 11:41:50AM +0530, 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, ....) > > Why not utilize the pvops path? Duh. You did use it. Sorry about the noise. -- 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/