LKML Archive on lore.kernel.org
help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Zachary Amsden <zach@vmware.com>
To: Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>
Cc: Glauber de Oliveira Costa <gcosta@redhat.com>,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, akpm@linux-foundation.org,
glommer@gmail.com, tglx@linutronix.de, ehabkost@redhat.com,
jeremy@goop.org, avi@qumranet.com, anthony@codemonkey.ws,
virtualization@lists.linux-foundation.org, rusty@rustcorp.com.au,
ak@suse.de, chrisw@sous-sol.org, rostedt@goodmis.org,
hpa@zytor.com, roland@redhat.com, mtosatti@redhat.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/10] Tree fixes for PARAVIRT
Date: Fri, 18 Jan 2008 13:54:08 -0800 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <1200693248.21817.157.camel@bodhitayantram.eng.vmware.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20080118213711.GA24979@elte.hu>
On Fri, 2008-01-18 at 22:37 +0100, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> * Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu> wrote:
>
> > > The first fix is not even specific for PARAVIRT, and it's actually
> > > preventing the whole tree from booting.
> >
> > on CONFIG_EFI, indeed :)
>
> but in exchange you broke all of 32-bit with CONFIG_PARAVIRT=y. Which
> means you did not even build-test it on 32-bit, let alone boot test
> it...
Why are we rushing so much to do 64-bit paravirt that we are breaking
working configurations? If the developement is going to be this
chaotic, it should be done and tested out of tree until it can
stabilize.
I do not like having to continuously retest and review the x86 branch
because the paravirt-ops are constantly in flux and the 32-bit code
keeps breaking.
We won't be doing 64-bit paravirt-ops for exactly this reason - is there
a serious justification from the performance angle on modern 64-bit
hardware? If not, why justify the complexity and hackery to Linux?
Zach
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2008-01-18 21:48 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 29+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2008-01-18 17:20 [PATCH 0/10] Tree fixes for PARAVIRT Glauber de Oliveira Costa
2008-01-18 17:20 ` [PATCH 1/10] add missing parameter for lookup_address Glauber de Oliveira Costa
2008-01-18 17:20 ` [PATCH 2/10] add stringify header Glauber de Oliveira Costa
2008-01-18 17:20 ` [PATCH 3/10] provide a native_init_IRQ function to x86_64 Glauber de Oliveira Costa
2008-01-18 17:20 ` [PATCH 4/10] put generic mm_hooks include into PARAVIRT Glauber de Oliveira Costa
2008-01-18 17:20 ` [PATCH 5/10] puts read and write cr8 into pv_cpu_ops Glauber de Oliveira Costa
2008-01-18 17:20 ` [PATCH 6/10] provide read and write cr8 paravirt hooks Glauber de Oliveira Costa
2008-01-18 17:20 ` [PATCH 7/10] fill pv_cpu_ops structure with cr8 fields Glauber de Oliveira Costa
2008-01-18 17:20 ` [PATCH 8/10] add asm_offset PARAVIRT constants Glauber de Oliveira Costa
2008-01-18 17:20 ` [PATCH 9/10] provide __parainstructions section Glauber de Oliveira Costa
2008-01-18 17:20 ` [PATCH 10/10] change function orders in paravirt.h Glauber de Oliveira Costa
2008-01-18 20:24 ` Jeremy Fitzhardinge
2008-01-18 20:41 ` [PATCH 9/10] provide __parainstructions section Sam Ravnborg
2008-01-18 22:47 ` Jeremy Fitzhardinge
2008-01-18 20:26 ` [PATCH 1/10] add missing parameter for lookup_address Chris Wright
2008-01-19 1:16 ` Andi Kleen
2008-01-18 20:32 ` [PATCH 0/10] Tree fixes for PARAVIRT Ingo Molnar
2008-01-18 21:37 ` Ingo Molnar
2008-01-18 21:54 ` Zachary Amsden [this message]
2008-01-18 22:02 ` Ingo Molnar
2008-01-19 1:24 ` Glauber de Oliveira Costa
2008-01-22 12:20 ` Ingo Molnar
2008-01-18 22:31 ` Jeremy Fitzhardinge
2008-01-19 18:19 ` [PATCH] fill in missing pv_mmu_ops entries for PAGETABLE_LEVELS >= 3 Marcelo Tosatti
2008-01-20 5:05 ` Jeremy Fitzhardinge
2008-01-21 20:44 ` Eduardo Pereira Habkost
2008-01-21 21:19 ` Jeremy Fitzhardinge
2008-01-22 12:30 ` Ingo Molnar
2008-01-28 22:33 ` Glauber de Oliveira Costa
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=1200693248.21817.157.camel@bodhitayantram.eng.vmware.com \
--to=zach@vmware.com \
--cc=ak@suse.de \
--cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=anthony@codemonkey.ws \
--cc=avi@qumranet.com \
--cc=chrisw@sous-sol.org \
--cc=ehabkost@redhat.com \
--cc=gcosta@redhat.com \
--cc=glommer@gmail.com \
--cc=hpa@zytor.com \
--cc=jeremy@goop.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=mingo@elte.hu \
--cc=mtosatti@redhat.com \
--cc=roland@redhat.com \
--cc=rostedt@goodmis.org \
--cc=rusty@rustcorp.com.au \
--cc=tglx@linutronix.de \
--cc=virtualization@lists.linux-foundation.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).