Jeremy Fitzhardinge
2007-Apr-18 17:49 UTC
PARAVIRT_SAVE_FLAGS_IRQ_DISABLE composite callsite
What was the point of this again? Was it that these two operations are used so commonly together that its worth having a special type for them, or is there some correctness issue here? It seems to me that having it adds a fair amount of fiddley complexity, and it doesn't gain very much because patching will make each operation individually fairly efficient. J
On Sun, 2007-02-25 at 01:40 -0800, Jeremy Fitzhardinge wrote:> What was the point of this again? Was it that these two operations are > used so commonly together that its worth having a special type for them, > or is there some correctness issue here? > > It seems to me that having it adds a fair amount of fiddley complexity, > and it doesn't gain very much because patching will make each operation > individually fairly efficient.Yes, the combo was *so* common we went for one patch site rather than two. Rusty.
Apparently Analagous Threads
- PARAVIRT_SAVE_FLAGS_IRQ_DISABLE composite callsite
- HVM hypercalls
- [PATCH] MAINTAINERS: Provide proper URL to the upstream Linux development tree for Xen.
- [RFC PATCH] x86/paravirt: Kill some unused patching functions
- [RFC PATCH] x86/paravirt: Kill some unused patching functions