On Sun, Sep 6, 2015 at 11:57 PM, Peter Zijlstra <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> Just to continue the argument for arguments sake, the function is named
> 'virt' (not paravirt) and tests the HYPERVISOR CPUID bit. How is that
> not appropriately named?
Well, I think right now one issue is that you can't avoid it, even
when you want pure "raw hardware" spinlocks.
I really think it should at the very least be inside CONFIG_PARAVIRT.
Because it *is* about helping the hypervisor, so really is about
paravirtualization.
So naming is misleading, I think, and the config option situation is
not great. If you act differently under virtualization than you do on
raw hardware, what would you call that? I'd call it "paravirt".
Linus
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [email protected]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
