Jeremy Fitzhardinge wrote:
> Wrap the paravirt_ops members we want to export in wrapper functions.
> Since we binary-patch the critical ones, this doesn't make a speed
> impact.
>
> I moved drm_follow_page into the core, to avoid having to wrap the
> various pte ops. Unlining kernel_fpu_end and using that in the RAID6
> code would remove the need to export clts/read_cr0/write_cr0 too.
>
> Signed-off-by: Rusty Russell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Signed-off-by: Chris Wright <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Signed-off-by: Jeremy Fitzhardinge <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> ===================================================================
> --- a/arch/i386/kernel/paravirt.c
> +++ b/arch/i386/kernel/paravirt.c
> @@ -596,6 +596,123 @@ static int __init print_banner(void)
> return 0;
> }
> core_initcall(print_banner);
> +
> +unsigned long paravirt_save_flags(void)
> +{
> + return paravirt_ops.save_fl();
> +}
> +EXPORT_SYMBOL(paravirt_save_flags);
> +
> +void paravirt_restore_flags(unsigned long flags)
> +{
> + paravirt_ops.restore_fl(flags);
> +}
> +EXPORT_SYMBOL(paravirt_restore_flags);
> +
> +void paravirt_irq_disable(void)
> +{
> + paravirt_ops.irq_disable();
> +}
> +EXPORT_SYMBOL(paravirt_irq_disable);
> +
> +void paravirt_irq_enable(void)
> +{
> + paravirt_ops.irq_enable();
> +}
> +EXPORT_SYMBOL(paravirt_irq_enable);
>
This turned out really hideous looking to me. Can't we split the struct
into GPL'd and non-GPL'd functions instead? We still have the same
granularity, and none of this function call to an indirect function call
nonsense.
Zach
_______________________________________________
Virtualization mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.osdl.org/mailman/listinfo/virtualization
