Alexander Graf wrote:
Paravirt ops is currently only capable of either replacing a lot of Linux
internal code or none at all. The are users that don't need all of the
possibilities pv-ops delivers though.
On KVM for example we're perfectly fine not using the PV MMU, thus not
touching any MMU
On 12/03/2009 04:52 PM, Alexander Graf wrote:
Alexander Graf wrote:
Paravirt ops is currently only capable of either replacing a lot of Linux
internal code or none at all. The are users that don't need all of the
possibilities pv-ops delivers though.
On KVM for example we're perfectly fine
Avi Kivity wrote:
On 12/03/2009 04:52 PM, Alexander Graf wrote:
Alexander Graf wrote:
Paravirt ops is currently only capable of either replacing a lot of
Linux
internal code or none at all. The are users that don't need all of the
possibilities pv-ops delivers though.
On KVM for
On 12/03/2009 05:04 PM, Alexander Graf wrote:
Don't think so. I suggest you copy lkml and Ingo.
Sending off the complete set again?
Yes.
Rebased against what?
tip's x86/paravirt seems like a good choice (though only one patch is in
there at present).
--
error compiling
On 11/18/2009 02:13 AM, Alexander Graf wrote:
Paravirt ops is currently only capable of either replacing a lot of Linux
internal code or none at all. The are users that don't need all of the
possibilities pv-ops delivers though.
On KVM for example we're perfectly fine not using the PV MMU, thus
Paravirt ops is currently only capable of either replacing a lot of Linux
internal code or none at all. The are users that don't need all of the
possibilities pv-ops delivers though.
On KVM for example we're perfectly fine not using the PV MMU, thus not
touching any MMU code. That way we don't
