* Ingo Molnar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> * Alexander van Heukelum <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > > My estimation is that if we do it right, your approach will behave
> > > better on modern CPUs (which is what matters most for such
> > > things), especially on real workloads where there's a considerable
> > > instruction-cache pressure. But it should be measured in any case.
> >
> > Fully agreed. I will do some measurements in the near future, maybe
> > next week. At least noone came up with an absolutely blocking
> > problem with this approach ;).
>
> how about "it does not build with lguest enabled" as a blocking
> problem? ;-)
>
> arch/x86/lguest/built-in.o: In function `lguest_init_IRQ':
> boot.c:(.init.text+0x33f): undefined reference to `interrupt'
>
> config attached.
... other than that it booted fine on a few testboxes here. That's
still not an exhaustive test by any means, but it's promising.
Ingo
_______________________________________________
Lguest mailing list
[email protected]
https://ozlabs.org/mailman/listinfo/lguest
