 Home |
Products |
Support |
Community |
News |
xen-devel
Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH 3/6] eliminate cpu_set()
| To: | Jan Beulich <JBeulich@xxxxxxxx> |
|---|---|
| Subject: | Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH 3/6] eliminate cpu_set() |
| From: | Keir Fraser <keir@xxxxxxx> |
| Date: | Mon, 07 Nov 2011 15:05:52 +0000 |
| Cc: | "xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx" <xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> |
| Delivery-date: | Mon, 07 Nov 2011 07:09:22 -0800 |
| Dkim-signature: | v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=sender:user-agent:date:subject:from:to:cc:message-id:thread-topic :thread-index:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type :content-transfer-encoding; bh=TinwZl57GOXn2FRiA3PoRz8i/hLKOBVAGcspep3uJ54=; b=cIYry6fWBhSYRItcoDzBrKYBriI3PTYm8Fu6/Escp+w64vbYJt+PFjljsVVPbWtrhW lPL1xzLjQnnOeAOk25kW874ZlAr3ibZQBa9xpwqkWxpImmAwpAXLPiZ1RYJbQQ5ySzyb 6XiPH6zTGqiIG2EdzbzARI8y1OFCtSIoSIxyI= |
| Envelope-to: | www-data@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx |
| In-reply-to: | <4EB7FEBE020000780005F601@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> |
| List-help: | <mailto:xen-devel-request@lists.xensource.com?subject=help> |
| List-id: | Xen developer discussion <xen-devel.lists.xensource.com> |
| List-post: | <mailto:xen-devel@lists.xensource.com> |
| List-subscribe: | <http://lists.xensource.com/mailman/listinfo/xen-devel>, <mailto:xen-devel-request@lists.xensource.com?subject=subscribe> |
| List-unsubscribe: | <http://lists.xensource.com/mailman/listinfo/xen-devel>, <mailto:xen-devel-request@lists.xensource.com?subject=unsubscribe> |
| Sender: | xen-devel-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx |
| Thread-index: | AcydXr2ULLkdbw+7fk6cBIleiRhJJA== |
| Thread-topic: | [Xen-devel] [PATCH 3/6] eliminate cpu_set() |
| User-agent: | Microsoft-Entourage/12.30.0.110427 |
On 07/11/2011 14:52, "Jan Beulich" <JBeulich@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>> Hmm, I don't like this interface design too much either, but again wanted
>>> to follow Linux rather than cooking our own. Do you really want us to
>>> diverge in this respect?
>>
>> Yes. Apart from maybe the code that tickles the remote APIC, our smpboot
>> code is already well diverged from Linux.
>
> In that case I'd prefer not having a separate abstraction here at all - is
> that fine by you?
Yes! I also would prefer no abstraction, although I'm not that fussed either
way since there are other abstractions over cpu_{online,present}_map.
-- Keir
_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.xensource.com/xen-devel
|
| <Prev in Thread] | Current Thread | [Next in Thread> |
|---|---|---|
| ||
| Previous by Date: | [Xen-devel] [PATCH] libxl: add libxl__forkexec function to libxl_exec, Roger Pau Monne |
|---|---|
| Next by Date: | [Xen-devel] [PATCH 0 of 7] xl domain config file documentation & other bits, Ian Campbell |
| Previous by Thread: | Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH 3/6] eliminate cpu_set(), Jan Beulich |
| Next by Thread: | [Xen-devel] [PATCH 4/6] eliminate cpu_clear(), Jan Beulich |
| Indexes: | [Date] [Thread] [Top] [All Lists] |
