Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH 1/2] RFC: Prepare PAD for native and xen platform

["Liu, Jinsong" <jinsong.liu@xxxxxxxxx>]

Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk wrote:
>>> Compare approaches:
>>> 
>>> 1. xen overwritten approach (patches V2, x86_init, osl approach)   
>>>         Pros: a little simpler code
>>>     Cons:
>>>         1). specific to xen, cannot extend to other virt platform;
>>>         2). need to change natvie acpi_pad as modular;
>>> 
>>> 2. paravirt interface approach (original patches V1)     Pros:
>>>         1). standard hypervisor-agnostic interface (USENIX
>>>         conference 2006), can easily hook to Xen/lguest/... on
>>>         demand; 2). arch independent; 3). no need to change native
>>>         acpi_pad as     non-modular; Cons: a little complicated
>>> code, and code patching is some 
>>> overkilled for this case (but no harm);
>>> 
>>> (BTW, in the future we need add more and more pv ops, like
>>> pv_pm_ops, pv_cpu_hotplug_ops, pv_mem_hotplug_ops, etc. So how
>>> about add a pv_misc_ops template to handle them all? seems it's a
>>> common issue). 
>>> 
> 
> I think (and you probabaly have a better idea) is that the maintainer
> of drivers/acpi/* is not very open to adding in code that only
> benefits Xen. 
> 
> If it benefits other architectures (say ARM) then adding in hooks
> there (in osl for example) makes sense - but I am not sure if ARM has
> a form 
> of _PUR code/calls it needs to do.
> 
> So with that in mind, neither of those options seems proper - as all
> of them depend on changing something in drivers/acpi/*.
> 
> I've one or two suggestions of what could be done to still make this
> work, but I need you to first see what happens if the native acpi_pad
> runs under Xen with the latest upstream code (along with three patches
> that are in a BZ I pointed you too).

Konrad, any new idea? seems we hardly totally walk around acpi staff. Thanks, 
Jinsong
_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.xen.org/xen-devel