On Tue, 4 Nov 2008 17:54:09 +0100, "Ingo Molnar" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
>
> * 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? ;-)
Blocking for applying the patch as is, sure... As a proof of concept
it is still fine ;).
> arch/x86/lguest/built-in.o: In function `lguest_init_IRQ':
> boot.c:(.init.text+0x33f): undefined reference to `interrupt'
It just needs to be fixed. I guess similar problems are to
be expected with xen or um.
Thanks,
Alexander
> config attached.
>
> Ingo
--
Alexander van Heukelum
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
--
http://www.fastmail.fm - mmm... Fastmail...
_______________________________________________
Lguest mailing list
[email protected]
https://ozlabs.org/mailman/listinfo/lguest
